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respondent/DH was dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioners/JDs had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

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execution petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.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

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

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

                                        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