Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vernika Gandhi And Anr vs Apeejay School Faridabad on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055626
CR-2364-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:055626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
133 CR-2364-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:22.04.2024
Vernika Gandhi & another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Apeejay School Faridabad ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioners.
...
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/JDs against the order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Faridabad, vide which the execution petition filed by the respondent/DH was dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioners/JDs had handed over five cheques against the decreed amount.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the present revision petition are that a civil suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking decree for recovery of Rs.1,49,912/- along with pendente lite interest and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount against the petitioners. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2018, the said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faridabad. The said judgment and decree dated 14.05.2018 has been challenged before the District Judge, Faridabad vide Civil Appeal No.360 of 2023 which is pending adjudication. In the meantime, respondent No.1 filed the execution petition before the Executing Court for execution of judgment 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:32:42 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055626 CR-2364-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:055626 and decree dated 14.05.2018 being Execution No.162 of 2020. The Executing Court issued notice to the petitioners/JDs in the said execution petition. Vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2004 as per compromise effected between the parties, the JD handed over five cheques to the DH and thereafter counsel for DH made a statement to withdraw the aforesaid execution petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners/JDs have knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing of the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has contended that the respondent had approached this Court by way of filing CWP-15039- 2009 titled as 'Apeejay Education Society & antoher Vs. State of Haryana & others' against the order dated 06.07.2009 passed by the Government of Haryana placing a cap of 20% of tuition fee of preceding year on the fee hike by any private unaided school. Vide common judgment dated 27.04.2011 of this Court passed in CWP-11223-2009, the aforesaid order dated 06.07.2009 was set aside and liberty was given to the respondent
- Director, School Education to reconsider the entire issue and pass an appropriate order/direction in accordance with law and in case the Director finds that the present institutions are indulging in any commercialization, profiting or charging of capitation fee, then he would have authority to check and prevent the same by passing an appropriate order. He has further contended that the petitioners through Parents' Association had challenged the issue of arbitrariness in fee hike by respondent by way of filing CWP- 20545-2009 before this Court and in view of directions of this Court, a three member Committee was constituted to look into the issue. The Deputy 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:32:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055626 CR-2364-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:055626 Commissioner had also constituted a Committee headed by the SDM, Faridabad for the purpose of scrutinizing the account of the respondent to assess the same. He has submitted that hike in fee charged by the respondent is illegal and it does not adhere to the provisions to the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003. He has further submitted that the respondent had filed civil suits for recovery against many other similarly situated students/parents for recovery of exorbitant hike in fee before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Faridabad. The Civil Judge, Jr. Division vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2018 decreed the suit of the School, which has been assailed by the students by way of filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, which was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019. Then regular second appeal was preferred before this Court which was disposed of in a bunch of appeals in which lead case was RSA-3374-2017 and 57 other connected matters and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP (C) No.8544 of 2022 and SLP (C) Diary No.13606 of 2023. The respondent - School had shown apprehension that there were similar other cases pending and based on the impugned judgment, those appeal might also be rejected. While noting these contentions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide orders dated 13.05.2022 and 04.07.2023, issued directions that the impugned judgment will not have effect of law qua other cases till consideration of these matters and the aforesaid SLPs are still pending adjudication. He has further argued that the Executing Court was apprised time and again that they had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Faridabad 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:32:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055626 CR-2364-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:055626 before the District Judge, Faridabad, which is still pending adjudication and to keep the execution petition in abeyance till final decision of the civil appeal filed by the petitioners as well final decision of the aforesaid SLPs but the Executing Court did not consider the genuine request of the petitioners and insisted upon the petitioners to pay the decreed amount to the respondent. He has further that the petitioners requested the Executing Court that in similar execution petitions the coordinate Civil Judge kept the execution in abeyance till the final decision of the aforesaid SLPs but to no avail. He has contended that petitioners came to know about the fact that on 16.03.2024, the Executing Court had started threatening the similar situated persons with dire consequences by saying in the open Court that they would be put behind the bars if they did not agree to pay the settled amount on that day itself. So petitioners were left with no option except to concede the directions of Executing Court and on 19.03.2024 handed five cheques for settled amount. He has also contended that in the similar matters where respondents' suit for recovery had been decreed and execution petitions are pending, the Executing Courts had adjourned the matters sine die till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but despite it being brought to the notice of the Executing Court, the impugned order was passed by the Executing Court. He has further contended that while allowing the present revision petition, the impugned order under challenge be set aside as the petitioners/JDs had given five post dated cheques against the decreed amount which were obtained under coercion and the respondent/DH may be restrained from encashing the same being taken under coercion against the decreed amount.
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:32:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055626
CR-2364-2024 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:055626
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have gone through the records.
5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 reveals that JD along with his counsel was present in Court when he handed over five cheques to the DH to the tune of Rs.1,24,460/- as per compromise. Then counsel for the DH made a statement that as JD had tendered the post dated cheques and matter had been compromised, so he wanted to withdraw the present execution petition subject to encashment of the said cheques. In view of the aforesaid statement, the execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. So as reflected in the impugned order after compromising the matter between the parties as per the settlement and consent of both the parties, the cheques were handed over to the DH. So when the cheques were handed over in Court by the JD as per settlement reached at between them and his counsel was also present at that time and when there is nothing on record that these cheques were obtained under coercion as alleged, then the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
7. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( SUKHVINDER KAUR ) 22.04.2024 JUDGE harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:32:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055626 CR-2364-2024 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:055626
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 00:32:43 :::