Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paarth Sharma And Anr vs Apeejay School Faridabad on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055472
CR-2371-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:055472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
133 CR-2371-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:22.04.2024
Paarth Sharma & 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 16.03.2024 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Civil
Judge, Jr. Division, Faridabad, whereby the execution petition filed by the
respondent/DH has been dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioners/JDs had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.1,35,616/- 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
01.03.2019, the said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Faridabad. The said judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 has been
challenged before the District Judge, Faridabad vide Civil Appeal No.205 of
2019 which is pending adjudication. In the meantime, respondent had filed
the execution petition before the Executing Court for execution of judgment
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055472
CR-2371-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:055472
and decree dated 01.03.2019 being Execution No.201 of 2021. The
Executing Court issued notice to the petitioners/JDs in the said execution
petition. Vide the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 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execution petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055472
CR-2371-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:055472
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
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055472
CR-2371-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:055472
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 urged that a mutual settlement was arrived at between
the parties in view of an application dated 14.03.2024 moved by the
petitioners before the Executing Court. But after going through the said
application, the Executing Court felt offended and threatened the petitioners
to put them behind the bars if they would not agree to pay the settled amount
on that day itself and dismissed the said application vide order dated
14.03.2024 by issuing conditional warrants of petitioners for 16.03.2024.
The objections filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. He has further
urged that the said order dated 14.03.2024 was not made available to the
petitioners and they came to know about this development only when the
police officials apprised the petitioners that conditional warrants had been
issued against them. He has contended that on 16.03.2024 when the
petitioners appeared in the morning before the Executing Court, the
Executing Court started threatening the petitioners in open Court and also
the SHO, Faridabad that why the petitioners had come on their own in the
Court and why the SHO had failed to take the petitioners in custody for
producing them in Court. Again the Executing Court threatened the
petitioners to put them behind the bars if the agreed amount was not paid on
that day itself. The petitioners were kept in Court custody till 2:30 P.M.
Thereafter learned counsel for the respondent had handed over a draft
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055472
CR-2371-2024 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:055472
application by saying that they would accept the settled amount with post
dated cheques only and the Executing Court asked the petitioners to give one
cheque of current date and only thereafter the petitioners were allowed to
leave the Court after accepting the settled amount in the shape of five post
dated cheques including one cheque of current date. He has contended that
in the similar matters where respondents' suit for recovery had been decreed
and execution petitions are pending, the Executing Courts had adjourn 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, taken under coercion against the
decreed amount.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and
have gone through the records.
5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 reveals that
both the parties apprised the Court that the matter had been compromised
and also stated that the blank cheques which were provided in the Court on
14.03.2024 would have no purpose in that execution. It is specifically
recorded in the Court proceedings that after settlement and consent of both
the parties, the JD had mentioned the dates on those cheques and had handed
over the same to the DH. Thereafter counsel for the DH suffered a statement
to withdraw the execution petition and in view of such statement, the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055472
CR-2371-2024 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:055472
execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. So as reflected in the impugned order after compromising the
matter between the parties as per settlement and consent of both the parties,
the cheques were handed over to the DH after mentioning the dates. So
when the cheques were handed over in Court by the JD as per settlement
reached at between them 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 )
JUDGE
22.04.2024
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
