MUHAMMAD BUX KUMBHAR vs HABIB BANK LIMITED and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which in turn upheld the concurrent rejection of his plaint for damages. The petitioner, a former bank employee who had taken early retirement after 25 years of service, received his full and final settlement dues and the return of his mortgaged property title documents without objection. Approximately three years later, he filed a suit for damages alleging miscalculation of his retirement dues. The respondent-bank filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint for disclosing no cause of action and being time-barred, which was allowed by the trial court and affirmed through appellate and revisional forums. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any anomaly or miscalculation in the statement of dues and had accepted the full and final settlement without reservation years prior. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.
- Whether a suit for damages filed years after accepting retirement dues in full and final settlement without objection discloses a valid cause of action?
- Can a plaintiff challenge the calculation of retirement dues after receiving the settlement amount and mortgage documents without reservation?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the claim is time-barred and lacks a cause of action?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---Through the above petition, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21-4-2015, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in Civil Revision No. 68 of 2014, whereby the said revision has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-bank. Admittedly, after putting in 25 years of service, he applied for early retirement through his letter dated 24-3-2009, which request was accepted and he was accordingly retired from service w.e.f.
01.4.2009, and an amount of Rs.1,775,108.80 was paid tot him towards full and final settlement of his dues which amount he received without any objection or reservations, He also applied for release/return of the title documents of his property deposited by him with the respondent-bank by way of equitable mortgage, The documents were thus returned to him on 06.4.2009. It is only after a lapse of about three years that he filed suit for damages on 02.4.2012. Admittedly, since his retirement and till the date of filing of his suit throughout, the petitioner neither raised any objection, nor claimed any right or dues in relation to his past service/retirement, The respondent- bank filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed by the petitioner for filing thc suit, The other ground urged was that the suit was time barred also. The application was allowed and the plaint was rejected by the trial Court Appeal filed against the said order also was dismissed, and it was through the impugned order that his revision application was dismissed by the learned High Court, in which order it was also stated that the petitioner only alleged miscalculation of his dues by the respondent-bank.
3. The petitioner could not satisfy us also regarding his claim that the amount due towards pension has not been calculated properly, though he has been a professional banker and claims to be a Master in Economics, and also a Diploma Holder from the Institute of Bankers. He has not been able to point out any anomaly in the statement containing the details of the dues paid to him as submitted by the respondent-bank before us. Since the three forums below have rejected the petitioner's claim, we cannot take account at this stage, particularly when the petitioner has failed to point out any miscalculation and/or any amount of lawful dues having not been paid to him.
4. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed and leave toappeal refused.