Bangalore District Court
Ms Sarvodaya National Public School vs Ananth H Ashrit on 1 February, 2024
KABC020079962015
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH24)
AT BENGALURU.
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY,2024.
S.C.No.1059/2015, 1060/2015, 1061/2015,
1062/2015, 1063/2015, 1064/2015, 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Parties to S.C No.1059/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
( By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
SCCH-24 2 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
DEFENDANT/S:
1. Sri.Chandrashekar
R/at No.111/48,
Renuka Nilaya,
SVG Nagar, Mudalapalya,
Nagarabhavi Main road,
Bangalore560 072.
2. Kumar Subhash C,
S/o Chandrashekar,
Aged about 15 years,
R/at No.111/48,
Renuka Nilaya,
SVG Nagar, Mudalapalya,
Nagarabhavi Main road,
Bangalore72.
Since Minor Rep by his Natural Guardian
Sri.Chandrashekar, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1060/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
SCCH-24 3 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
DEFENDANT/S:
1. Sri.Prasanna A Samak,
R/at No.1153, 4th 'A' Main,
17th cross, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore 560 040.
2. Kumari Bhoomika P Samak
D/o Prasana A Samak
Aged about 16 years,
R/at No.1153, 4th A Main,
17th cross,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore40.
Since Minor Rep by her Natural Guardian
Sri.Prasana A Samak, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1061/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1. Sri.S.Suresh,
R/at 66, 11th 'B' Cross,
SCCH-24 4 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
3rd main, Prashanth Nagar,
Bangalore560 079.
2. Kumar Anirudh S,
S/o S Suresh,
Aged about 16 years,
R/at No.66, 11th 'B' Cross,
3rd main, Prashanth Nagar,
Bangalore79.
Since Minor Rep by his Natural Guardian
Sri.S.Suresh, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1062/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1. Sri.Prakash R
R/at No.80/9, 23rd cross,
Govindaraja Nagar,
17th cross,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore560 079.
SCCH-24 5 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
2. Kumari Deepathi P,
D/o R.Prakash,
Aged about 16 years,
R/at No.80/9, 23rd cross,
Govindaraja Nagar,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore79.
Since Minor Rep by her Natural Guardian
Sri.R.Prakash, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1063/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1. Sri.Raghavendra Shetty,
R/at 15/3, Ist Main,
Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore560 040.
2. Kumar Sumuka R,
S/o Raghavendra Shetty,
SCCH-24 6 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Aged about 17 years,
R/at 15/3, Ist Main,
Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore40.
Since Minor Rep by his Natural Guardian
Sri.Ragavendra Shetty, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1064/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1.Sri.Ananath H Ashrit,
R/at 12, 13th cross,
3rd main, Kalayan Nagar,
Mudlapalaya,
Nagarbhavi Main road,
Bangalore560 072.
2. Kumari.Bhavana A Ashrith
D/o Ananath H Ashrit,
Aged about 14 years,
R/at 12, 13th cross,
SCCH-24 7 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
3rd main, Kalayan Nagar,
Mudlapalaya,
Nagarbhavi Main road,
Bangalore72.
Since Minor Rep by her Natural Guardian
Sri.Ananth H Ashrit, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1065/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1.Sri.Rajesh S
R/at No.4, 'Lohit Cauvery',
Amarajyothi Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore560 040.
2. Kumari.Harinin Rajesh,
D/o Rajesh S
Aged about 15 years,
R/at No.4, 'Lohit Cauvery',
SCCH-24 8 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Amarajyothi Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore40.
Since Minor Rep by her Natural Guardian
Sri.S.Rajesh, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1067/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1.Sri.Rudregowda P.M,
R/at 31, 1st main,
IInd cross,
Pattegarapalaya,
Bangalore560 079.
2. Kumari Sushmitha B.R,
D/o Rudregowda P.M,
R/at 31, 1st main,
IInd cross, Pattegarapalya,
Bangalore79.
SCCH-24 9 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Since Minor Rep by her Natural Guardian
Sri.Rudregowda, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
Parties to S.C No.1068/2015
PLAINTIFF/S:
M/s Sarvodaya National
Public School
No.12, 10th main,
Binny Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore560 040.
Represented by its Administrator
Smt.Vyshali N.
(By Sri. V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANT/S:
1.Sri.Devaraja S
R/at No.222, 5th 'A' cross,
3rd main, Nagarbhavi Ist stage,
2nd Block, Kalyananagar,
Bangalore 560 072.
2. Kumari Nuthana D
D/o Devaraja J.S.,
Aged about 16 years,
R/at No.222, 5th 'A' cross,
3rd main, Nagarbhavi Ist stage,
2nd Block, Kalyananagar,
Bangalore 72.
Since Minor Rep by her Natural Guardian
Sri.Devaraja J.S, the defendant no.1.
(D1 & D2 By Sri.Rameshchandra, Advocate)
SCCH-24 10 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Date of institution of the : 07092015
all the suit
Nature of the all the suit : Money suit
Date of commencement of : 02082012
recording of evidence
Date on which the : 01022024
judgment was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
08 04 25
XXII Addl. Judge
COMMONJUDGMENT
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1059/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.69,425/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1060/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.76,705/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1061/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.69,425/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
SCCH-24 11 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1062/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.76,705/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1063/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.89,525/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1064/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.71,060/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1065/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.68,060/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1067/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.69,425/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
The plaintiff in S.C.No.1068/2015 has filed this suit
for recovery of Rs.76,705/ with interest at 18% per
annum from the date of suit till realization.
2. As per order on I.A.No.II, S.C.Nos.1060/2015,
1061/2015, 1062/2015, 1063/2015, 1064/2015,
1065/2015, 1067/2015 and 1068/2015 are clubbed with
S.C.No.1059/2015 for common trial.
SCCH-24 12 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1059/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a Educational Institution registered
under the name and style 'Sarvodaya National Public
School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good education
given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant has got
admitted his son viz., Subhash C along with other students
of the institution for the reasons best known to the
defendant, the defendant has been intentionally creating
problems to the institution in collusion with some of the
other parents of the plaintiff institution students and the
defendant no 1 is in due of tuition fee of Rs.64,425/
towards his son Subhas C who has studied V, VI and VII th
standard in the academic year of 201213, 201314 and
201415. At the time of examination held for previous
academic year 201112, the plaintiff has requested the
defendant to pay the amount and then to appear for
examination, but he has not paid the amounts due
towards his children, by that time Block Education officer
has interfered in the matter and requested the plaintiff to
allow the defendant children for appearing to the
examination. Respecting to the instruction of BEO, the
plaintiff has allowed the defendant children to appear for
examination with a specific condition that till payment of
SCCH-24 13 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
arrears of fee the plaintiff shall withheld the results of the
defendant children.
3(a) It is further submitted that the defendant has not
paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the future of
the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue the
studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff institution
but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the Hon'ble Civil
Court for recovery of amount due to the plaintiff institution
so for the academic year of 201112 in SC No.1077/2012.
In spite of several personal request, the defendant has not
paid the said amount. Having no alternative remedy, the
plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on
02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the arrears of tuition
of Rs.64,425/ within 3 days from the date of receipt of
legal notice. The defendant has duly acknowledged receipt
of legal notice and sent a reply proclaiming that the
plaintiff institution is claiming exorbitant fee and they are
only liable to pay the fee as fixed by the Government and
hence they paid Rs.12,000/ by way of cheque and after
presentation of said cheque, the Bank authorities have
issued acknowledgment as signature is not tallied. The
defendant is legally bound to pay arrears of Tuition Fee
towards his ward for having studies of his son in V, VI and
VII th standard, so also charges of Legal notice of
Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to Rs.69,425/ with the
SCCH-24 14 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of filing of the
suit till its realization.
4. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1060/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his daughter viz., Bhoomika P Samak
along with other students of the institution for the reasons
best known to the defendant, the defendant has been
intentionally creating problems to the institution in
collusion with some of the other parents of the plaintiff
institution students and the defendant is in due of tuition
fee of Rs.71,705/ towards his daughter Bhoomika P
Samak who has studied VII, VIII and IXth standard of the
academic year of 201213, 201314 and 201415. At the
time of examination held for previous academic year 2011
12, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to pay the
amount and then to appear for examination, but he has
not paid the amounts due towards his children, by that
time Block Education officer has interfered in the matter
and requested the plaintiff to allow the defendant children
for appearing to the examination. Respecting to the
SCCH-24 15 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
instruction of BEO, the plaintiff has allowed the defendant
children to appear for examination with a specific condition
that till payment of arrears of fee the plaintiff shall
withheld the results of the defendant children.
4(a) . It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1081/2012. In spite of several personal request, the
defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.71,705/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
SCCH-24 16 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
studies of his daughter in VII, VIII and IXth standard, so
also charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally
amounting to Rs.76,705/ with the interest at the rate of
18% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
5. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1061/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his son viz., Anirudh S along with other
students of the institution for the reasons best known to
the defendant, the defendant has been intentionally
creating problems to the institution in collusion with some
of the other parents of the plaintiff institution students and
the defendant is in due of tuition fee of Rs.64,425/
towards his son Subhas C who has studied V, VI and VIIth
standard of the academic year of 201213, 201314 and
201415. At the time of examination held for previous
academic year 201112, the plaintiff has requested the
defendant to pay the amount and then to appear for
examination, but he has not paid the amounts due
towards his children, by that time Block Education officer
has interfered in the matter and requested the plaintiff to
allow the defendant children for appearing to the
SCCH-24 17 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
examination. Respecting to the instruction of BEO, the
plaintiff has allowed the defendant children to appear for
examination with a specific condition that till payment of
arrears of fee the plaintiff shall withheld the results of the
defendant children.
5(a). It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1092/2012. In spite of several personal requests,
the defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.64,425/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
SCCH-24 18 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his son in V, VI and VII th standard, so also
charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to
Rs.69,425/ with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
6. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1062/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his daughter viz., Deepthy P along with
other students of the institution for the reasons best
known to the defendant, the defendant has been
intentionally creating problems to the institution in
collusion with some of the other parents of the plaintiff
institution students and the defendant is in due of tuition
fee of Rs.71,705/ towards his daughter viz., Deepthy P
who has studied VII, VIII and IXth standard of the
academic year of 201213, 201314 and 201415. At the
time of examination held for previous academic year 2011
12, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to pay the
amount and then to appear for examination, but he has
not paid the amounts due towards his children, by that
time Block Education officer has interfered in the matter
SCCH-24 19 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
and requested the plaintiff to allow the defendant children
for appearing to the examination. Respecting to the
instruction of BEO, the plaintiff has allowed the defendant
children to appear for examination with a specific condition
that till payment of arrears of fee the plaintiff shall
withheld the results of the defendant children.
6(a). It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1082/2012. In spite of several personal requests,
the defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.71,705/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12, 000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
SCCH-24 20 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his daughter in VII, VIII and IXth th standard, so
also charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally
amounting to Rs.76,705/ with the interest at the rate of
18% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
7. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1063/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his son viz., Sumuka R along with other
students of the institution for the reasons best known to
the defendant, the defendant has been intentionally
creating problems to the institution in collusion with some
of the other parents of the plaintiff institution students and
the defendant is in due of tuition fee of Rs.84,525/
towards his son viz., Sumuka R who has studied VI, VII
and VIII th standard of the academic year of 201213,
201314 and 201415. At the time of examination held for
previous academic year 201112, the plaintiff has
requested the defendant to pay the amount and then to
appear for examination, but he has not paid the amounts
due towards his children, by that time Block Education
SCCH-24 21 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
officer has interfered in the matter and requested the
plaintiff to allow the defendant children for appearing to
the examination. Respecting to the instruction of BEO, the
plaintiff has allowed the defendant children to appear for
examination with a specific condition that till payment of
arrears of fee the plaintiff shall withheld the results of the
defendant children.
7(a). It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1087/2012. In spite of several personal request, the
defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.84,525/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
SCCH-24 22 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his son in VI, VII and VIII th standard, so also
charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to
Rs.89,525/ with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
8. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1064/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his daughter viz., Bhavana A Ashrit along
with other students of the institution for the reasons best
known to the defendant, the defendant has been
intentionally creating problems to the institution in
collusion with some of the other parents of the plaintiff
institution students and the defendant is in due of tuition
fee of Rs.63,060/ towards his daughter viz., Bhavana A
Ashrit who has studied IV, V and VIth standard of the
academic year of 201213, 201314 and 201415. At the
time of examination held for previous academic year 2011
12, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to pay the
amount and then to appear for examination, but he has
SCCH-24 23 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
not paid the amounts due towards his children, by that
time Block Education officer has interfered in the matter
and requested the plaintiff to allow the defendant children
for appearing to the examination. Respecting to the
instruction of BEO, the plaintiff has allowed the defendant
children to appear for examination with a specific condition
that till payment of arrears of fee the plaintiff shall
withheld the results of the defendant children.
8(a). It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1075/2012. In spite of several personal requests,
the defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.63,060/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
SCCH-24 24 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his son in IV, V and VIth standard, so also
charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to
Rs.71,060/ with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
9. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1065/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his daughter viz., Harini Rajesh along
with other students of the institution for the reasons best
known to the defendant, the defendant has been
intentionally creating problems to the institution in
collusion with some of the other parents of the plaintiff
institution students and the defendant is in due of tuition
fee of Rs.63,060/ towards his son viz., Harini Rajesh who
has studied IV, V and VIth standard of the academic year
of 201213, 201314 and 201415. At the time of
examination held for previous academic year 201112, the
plaintiff has requested the defendant to pay the amount
SCCH-24 25 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
and then to appear for examination, but he has not paid
the amounts due towards his children, by that time Block
Eduction officer has interfered in the matter and requested
the plaintiff to allow the defendant children for appearing
to the examination. Respecting to the instruction of BEO,
the plaintiff has allowed the defendant children to appear
for examination with a specific condition that till payment
of arrears of fee the plaintiff shall withheld the results of
the defendant children.
9(a). It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee inspite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1086/2012. In spite of several personal request, the
defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.63,060/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
SCCH-24 26 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his son in IV, V and VI th standard, so also
charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to
Rs.68,060/ with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
10. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1067/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
eduction given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his daughter viz., Sushmith B.R along
with other students of the institution for the reasons best
known to the defendant, the defendant has been
intentionally creating problems to the institution in
collusion with some of the other parents of the plaintiff
institution students and the defendant is in due of tuition
fee of Rs.64,425/ towards his daughter viz., Sushmith B.R
who has studied V, VI and VIIth standard of the academic
year of 201213, 201314 and 201415. At the time of
examination held for previous academic year 201112, the
SCCH-24 27 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
plaintiff has requested the defendant to pay the amount
and then to appear for examination, but he has not paid
the amounts due towards his children, by that time Block
Eduction officer has interfered in the matter and requested
the plaintiff to allow the defendant children for appearing
to the examination. Respecting to the instruction of BEO,
the plaintiff has allowed the defendant children to appear
for examination with a specific condition that till payment
of arrears of fee the plaintiff shall withheld the results of
the defendant children.
10(a). It is further submitted that the defendant has
not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1088/2012. Inspite of several personal request, the
defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.64,425/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
SCCH-24 28 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his son in V, VI and VIIth standard, so also
charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to
Rs.69,425/ with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
11. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in
S.C.No.1068/2015 is that-
The plaintiff is a registered Educational Institution
registered under the name and style of 'Sarvodaya National
Public School' having ICSE syllabus. In spite of good
education given by the plaintiff institution to the defendant
has got admitted his son viz., Nuthana D along with other
students of the institution for the reasons best known to
the defendant, the defendant has been intentionally
creating problems to the institution in collusion with some
of the other parents of the plaintiff institution students and
the defendant is in due of tuition fee of Rs.71,705/
towards his son viz., Nuthana D who has studied VIII, IX
and Xth standard of the academic year of 201213, 2013
14 and 201415. At the time of examination held for
SCCH-24 29 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
previous academic year 201112, the plaintiff has
requested the defendant to pay the amount and then to
appear for examination, but he has not paid the amounts
due towards his children, by that time Block Eduction
officer has interfered in the matter and requested the
plaintiff to allow the defendant children for appearing to
the examination. Respecting to the instruction of BEO, the
plaintiff has allowed the defendant children to appear for
examination with a specific condition that till payment of
arrears of fee the plaintiff shall withheld the results of the
defendant children.
11(a). It is further submitted that the defendant
has not paid the tuition fee in spite of that considering the
future of the children the plaintiff has allowed to continue
the studies of the defendant children in the plaintiff
institution but the plaintiff has filed a suit before the
Hon'ble Civil Court for recovery of amount due to the
plaintiff institution so for the academic year of 201112 in
SC No.1078/2012. In spite of several personal requests,
the defendant has not paid the said amount. Having no
alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a
legal notice on 02.06.2015 calling upon him to pay the
arrears of tuition of Rs.71,705/ within 3 days from the
date of receipt of legal notice. The defendant has duly
acknowledged receipt of legal notice and sent a reply
SCCH-24 30 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
proclaiming that the plaintiff institution is claiming
exorbitant fee and they are only liable to pay the fee as
fixed by the Government and hence they paid Rs.12,000/
by way of cheque and after presentation of said cheque, the
Bank authorities have issued acknowledgment as
signature is not tallied. The defendant is legally bound to
pay arrears of Tuition Fee towards his ward for having
studies of his son in VIII, IX and Xth standard, so also
charges of Legal notice of Rs.5,000/ totally amounting to
Rs.76,705/ with the interest at the rate of 18% p.a from
the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
12. In all the plaints, in response to the suit
summons, the defendants have appeared before this Court
and resisted the suit by filing their written statements.
12(a). The defendants have denied all the averments
and allegations made against them in all the plaints and
contended that, there is no fixation of fee in accordance
with the Education Act or in accordance with law till today.
Hence, the fee claimed cannot be termed as legally
recoverable fee. There is no fee fixed in accordance with
law. The school authorities cannot fix fee as it intended
even according to the Bye law. It is further contended that
there was serious threats to the students who have
actually resisted the fee structure and resisted the illegal
action of the plaintiff. when this was brought to the notice
SCCH-24 31 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
of the Hon'ble High court, the Hon'ble High court by order
dated 12.02.2013, has directed not to refuse admission
and other consequential orders in the WP 1880918840 of
2012 filed by the defendant and other students against the
plaintiff and others.
12(b). It is further submitted that the order passed in
Writ Petition was challenged in writ appeal by plaintiff &
Anr., in WA 2125/2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has confirmed the order dated 12.02.2013 by
dismissing the writ appeal.
12(c). It is further submitted that the Block
Educational Officer had given direction in accordance with
law as the plaintiff was demanding heavy amount towards
fee without any justification.
12(d). It is admitted that a notice was issued to them
and they were sent reply to the notice, since the
defendants in all the cases have already challenged the fee
structure before the Hon'ble High in WP 1880918840 of
2012, the question of payment of fee will not arise. It is
further admitted that the notice was issued demanding
hefty amount. The defendants have sent amount as per the
oral direction of the court while passing order prior to
12.02.2013. It appears that the bank has mistakenly sent
back the cheque. By issuing reply, the defendants and
SCCH-24 32 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
other parents have requested to present the cheque once
again but the said cheques were not presented deliberately
only to harass them and other students.
12(e). It is further contended by the defendants that
in fact the government has fixed the fee to be paid to the
unaided school by way of notification fixing maximum fee
of Rs.600/ per year as tuition fee and there is no question
of maintenance fee. The educational institution is
prohibited from collecting extra amount. This suit is filed
only to harass them on one way or the other. Contending
thus defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. The defendant no.2 has filed written statement
and contended that the present defendant adopts the
written statement filed by the defendant no.1 and
submitted by the Defendant no.2 that they have already
challenged the fee structure before the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in W.P.No.1880918840/2012, and the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to pass an
order in the said Writ Petitions on 12.02.2013, which was
challenged in Writ Appeal by the Plaintiff School and
another in W.A.No.2125/2013, wherein the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka confirmed the order dated.12.02.2013,
by dismissing the Writ Appeal. Therefore there is no cause
of action to the Suit.
SCCH-24 33 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
13(a). It is further submitted that, the suit is barred
by time, the application for impleading the present
defendants is filed during 2018, the summons was served
during June2018, hence as per Order 1 Rule 10(5) of CPC,
the limitation commences from the date of service of
summons.
13(b). It is further submitted by the Defendant that
the Plaintiff Institution has obtained NOC from the
Government while setting up the School. Accordingly it has
agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the NOC
that the School has to collect the fees as prescribed by the
State Government. It is further submitted that Clause 5 of
the Appendix to the no objection certificate reads as under:
"The Management shall not collect any donation from the
students or their parents/guardians and collect only fess
as prescribed by the Government from time to time as per
the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Abolition of Capitation Fee) Act 1984. Accordingly prays to
dismiss the Suit.
14. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has
framed the following points in SC.No.1059/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that
the Defendants are liable to pay
arrears of fee of Rs.64,425/ with
SCCH-24 34 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
interest including legal notice charges
of Rs.5,000/ totally Rs.64,425/ as
claimed ?
2. What Order?
15. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has
framed the following issues in SC.No.1060/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of
fee of Rs.71,705/ with interest
including legal notice charges of
Rs.5,000/ totally Rs.76,705/ as
claimed ?
2. What Order?
16. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has framed
the following issues in SC.No.1061/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of
fee of Rs.64,425/ with interest
including legal notice charges of
Rs.5,000/ totally Rs.69,425/ as
claimed ?
2. What Order ?
17. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has
framed the following issues in SC.No.1062/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of fee
of Rs.71,705/ with interest including
legal notice charges of Rs.5,000/ totally
Rs.76,705/ as claimed ?
SCCH-24 35 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
2. What Order ?
18. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has framed
the following issues in SC.No.1063/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of fee
of Rs.84,525/ with interest including
legal notice charges of Rs.5,000/ totally
Rs.89,525/ as claimed ?
2. What Order ?
19. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has
framed the following issues in SC.No.1064/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of fee
of Rs.63,060/ with interest including
legal notice charges of Rs.5,000/ totally
Rs.71,060/ as claimed ?
2. What Order ?
20. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has
framed the following issues in SC.No.1065/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of fee
of Rs.63, 060/ with interest including
legal notice charges of Rs.5,000/ totally
Rs.68,060/ as claimed ?
2. What Order?
21. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has
framed the following issues in SC.No.1067/2015:
SCCH-24 36 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of fee
of Rs.64,425/ with interest including
legal notice charges of Rs.5,000/ totally
Rs.69,425/ as claimed ?
2. What Order ?
22. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has framed
the following issues in SC.No.1068/2015:
1. Whether the Plaintiff made out that the
Defendants are liable to pay arrears of fee
of Rs.71,705/ with interest including
legal notice charges of Rs.5,000/ totally
Rs.76,705/ as claimed ?
2. What Order?
23. The plaintiff in S.C.No.1059/2015 to S.C
No.1065/2015, S.C.No.1067/2015 and SC.No.1068/2015
got examined its Administrator as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to P5, 8
are exhibited during her evidence. During the cross
examination of D.W1, two documents got marked Ex.P6
and P7.
24. On the other hand the Power of attorney Holder of
defendants in S.C.No.1059/2015 to S.C No.1065/2015,
S.C.No.1067/2015 and SC.No.1068/2015 is examined as
DW.1 and Ex.D2 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.8
and 9. During the cross of PW.1, seven documents got
marked as Ex.D1 to 7. The SPA Deed executed by
SCCH-24 37 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
defendants in remaining eight cases are wrongly marked as
Ex.D2 even though order in Write Appeal was already
marked as Ex.D2. Hence, the SPA deeds executed by
defendants in remaining cases which was wrongly marked
as Ex.D2 is re exhibited as Ex.D10.
25. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the
plaintiffs and defendants. Perused the entire materials
placed on record.
26. My answers to the above points in
S.C.No.1059/2015 to S.C No.1065/2015, S.C
No.1067/2015 and S.C.No.1068/2015 are as under:
Point No.1 - In the Negative,
Point No.2 - - As per the final order.
REASONS
27. Point no1 in S.C.No.1059/2015 to S.C No.1065/2015,
S.CNo.1067/2015 and S.C.No.1068/2015 : In all the nine
cases referred above plaintiff is an Educational Institution .
All the suits are filed for recovery of arrears of tuition fee
from the respective defendants for the academic year 2012
2013 to 2014 - 2015 to the tune of Rupees one stated in
the relief column of the plaint . It is the definite case of the
plaintiff that defendant no 2 in all the cases being the
student of the plaintiff having pursued their studies in the
plaintiff institution which is a private institution failed to
SCCH-24 38 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
pay the tuition fee as prescribed by the Management
committee in spite of the repeated request and demands
made by them .
28. Per contra it is the submission made by the
defendants that the plaintiff has not fixed the fee in
accordance with the Education Act or in accordance with
law , hence the fee claimed is not legally recoverable debt,
that plaintiff cannot fix the fee as they intended, that
defendants have already paid the reasonable fee and they
are not in due of any fee to the plaintiff as stated in the
plaint.
29. In order to prove the contention taken by the
plaintiff, it has examined its Administrator as Pw1 and got
marked in all eight documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Among
the documents, Ex.P1 is the Authorization Letter given to
the Pw1 to represent the case on behalf of Mattadahally
Jagajeevanram Sarvodaya Sangha.
30. ExP2 is the Certificate of Affiliation, ExP3 is the
Registration Certificate, ExP4 is the copy of the legal notice
issued to the defendants, ExP5 is the postal receipt for
having issued legal notice through RPAD, ExP6 and ExP7
are the certified copy of the deposition of SPA Holder of
defendants here in given in SC NO 1075 of 2012 and O.S
No. 8003/2015, ExP8 is the certified copy of the judgment
SCCH-24 39 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
and decree passed in O.S No 8003/2015 on the file of LVI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Jude Bangalore.
31. To negative the contention taken by the defendants
in all the aforesaid suits, the SPA holder of the defendants
is examined as Dw1 and through confrontation to Pw1 the
certified copy of the common interim order passed in WP
No 18809 to 18840/212 is marked as ExD1, the certified
copy of the common order passed in Writ Appeal NOs 2125
and 28342864/2013 dated 4th June 2013 is marked as
ExD2, No objection certificate appended with conditions is
marked as ExD3, Order on contempt petition in CCC No
1831 of 2013 and CCC 341614182013 dated 10 th March
2014 is marked as ExD4, the Judgment and decree passed
in SC No 1077/2012 is marked as ExD5 and ExD6, the
notice issued by BEO South Division 2 is marked as
ExD7, the SPA deed executed by defendant is marked as
ExD8, the deposition of Pw1 here in given in SC NO 1077
of 2012 is marked as EXD9. The SPA Deeds executed by
defendants in remaining eight cases are wrongly marked as
Ex.D2 even though order in Writ Appeal was already
marked as Ex.D2. Hence the SPA deeds executed by
defendants in remaining cases which was wrongly marked
as ExD2 is re exhibited as Ex.D10.
32. If the evidence placed on record both oral and
documentary is carefully perused, the admitted fact which
SCCH-24 40 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
emerges is that the plaintiff is a private Unaided school
registered and affiliated for ICSE imparting education to
the student. The defendant no 2 in all the suits had
pursued their studies in the said school from 1 st standard
to 10th standard and after coming out from the said school
they went for their higher studies. It can be culled out from
the evidence that till the academic year 20102011 the
defendants here in have paid tuition fees as prescribed by
the institution without raising any objection. For the first
time during the year 20112012 they have objected for hike
in the school fee and accordingly nearly 32 students
including the defendants no 2 in all the nine cases have
preferred Writ Petition in 1880918840/2012 before the
Hon'ble High court claiming for the relief striking down
section 3(IIIA) of Karnataka Education Act is violation of
Article 14 of Constitution , quash the fee hike done by the
plaintiff and an interim order to direct the plaintiff to issue
report card and also to admit the writ petitioners for made
the petitioners for further studies pending disposal of the
petition. Admittedly interim order was passed in favor of
the writ petitioners. Questioning the correctness of the
order, the plaintiff has preferred writ appeal in WP NO
2125 and 28242864/2013. The Hon'ble Division Bench
was pleased to reject the said Writ Appeal vide order dated
4th June 2013. If the evidence of Dw1 and the line of cross
examination done to the Pw1 by the defendants is read in
SCCH-24 41 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
whole, though no material has been placed to the effect
that the disputed matter was referred to the Division
Bench, but Dw1 during his cross examination has
admitted the said fact . As per the evidence of Pw1, the
hon'ble Division Bench had given liberty to the plaintiff to
collect the fees as prescribed by them. But as per the
evidence of Dw1 the hon'ble Division Bench has directed
the plaintiff to collect the fee in accordance with law.
Admittedly neither of the parties have placed any material
to say what is the fee fixed either by the State Government
or by the Central government or by the plaintiff institution.
According to the Dw1 in view of the order passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench directing the plaintiff to fix the fee
in accordance with law and also in compliance of the oral
direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in the above
referred Writ petitions, they have paid more than what is
the fee fixed for the students under RTE Act hence they are
not liable to pay any fee to the plaintiff.
33. It is further an admitted fact that prior to this suit,
the plaintiff had filed suit against some of the defendants
here in for recovery of Fee for the Academic year 2011
2012 in SC No 1077/2012, SC No 1075/2012 etc on the
file of this court. Admittedly after hot contest SC No
1077/2012 filed against the defendant in SC NO
1059/2015 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
SCCH-24 42 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
20/11/2018 as per Ex.D5 and Ex.D6. Admittedly the
judgment and decree passed in SC NO 1077/2012 is under
challenge. In the same way apart from the present suits,
the plaintiff institution had filed three more suits against
some of the students in O.S No 8003/2015, 8005/2015
and 8006/2015 on the file of Hon'ble City Civil And
Sessions Judge Bangalore City for recovery of fee for the
academic year 2012 2013, 2013 to 2014 and 20142015.
The said suits were decreed vide judgment and decree
dated 16/7/2022. Admittedly the correctness of the
judgment and decree passed in the said three suits in favor
of the plaintiff institution was questioned by the
defendants before the Hon'ble High court which are
pending for consideration. Hence neither the judgment and
decree passed in SC 1077/2012 nor the judgment and
decree passed in O.S No 8003/2015, 8005/15 and
8006/2015 /2015 has reached its finality.
34. If Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are perused, at the cost of
repetition, when plaintiff institution has hiked the fee
during the year 20112012, nearly 32 students studying in
the plaintiff institution of whom defendants in the present
suits are the one have preferred Writ petition before the
Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No 18809
18840/2012. The said Writ Petitions was filed with prayer
to strike down Section 3(IIIA) of Karnataka Education Act
SCCH-24 43 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and to quash
the hike of fee done by the plaintiff institution. In the said
writ petitions, interim relief was prayed to direct the
plaintiff institution to issue report card and to admit the
writ petitioners for further studies pending disposal of the
petition. In the said writ petitions interim order was passed
vide dated 12/2/2013 and observation was made to the
effect that " In view of Article 21(A) of Constitution of
India children between the age group of 6 to 14 years
have been provided with fee and compulsory
education and also quality education not only for 25%
prescribed and selected by the state as per the Right
to Education At but to all the children who claim the
benefit of fee concession for the academic year though
some of them do not claim . It is for the state to
reimburse the fee fixed by the respective schools and
reasonable fee may be worked out in the seminar .
In this regard it is for the state government and
Central government to work out the fee that has to be
paid by each child between the age group of 6 to 14
years and to see that proper arrangements are made
to indemnify the concerned institution on behalf of
the children. It is further observed that as petitioners
have contended that the school concerned and private
SCCH-24 44 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
managements are refusing to entertain the children to
attend the classes, such being the position private
managements are also directed not to prevent the
children from attending classes or tests or
examination. However it is for the private
managements to put forth their claim with the state
government with regard to fee structure and recover
the same from the govemrent. If the same is not
satisfied they can well approach the court for
redressel of their grievances".
35. By passing order to the aforesaid effect, the Hon'ble
High court has given direction to the plaintiff institution to
approach the state government with regard to fee structure
and to recover the same from the government and in case
the government did not satisfy the claim then have to
approach the court for necessary redressal against the
state government.
36. It is relevant to state here that the order to the
aforesaid effect was passed questioning the hike of fees.
Hence the matter in dispute in the said writ petitions and
in the present suits is somewhat identical.
37. If Ex.D2 is perused, admittedly assailed with the
interim order passed by the single bench of Hon'ble High
SCCH-24 45 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
court, the plaintiff institution had preferred Writ appeal
before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Before the Writ appeal ,
the plaintiff institution has taken the contention that
though in the writ petitions the Hon'ble single bench has
passed order in favor of the institution permitting to collect
the fee which it has prescribed but by order dated
12/2/2013 it had directed the institution to collect the
arrears of fee from the state govemrent and thereby had
made the order dated 26/11/2012 in favor of the plaintiff
institution against the writ petitioners as unenforceable . It
is also brought to the notice by the appellant / plaintiff
institution that they have made a representation to the
state government in terms of the observation in the order
dated 12/2/2013 but the state government has not yet
responded to the same.
38. Taking in to consideration the order dated
26/11/2012 passed in the writ petitions so also the
grounds urged in the writ appeal, the Division Bench of
hon'ble High court in the Writ Appeal has observed to the
effect that " the appellant / plaintiff institution has to
seek further orders for collecting fees in the writ
petition by reserving liberty to the plaintiff institution
to seek modification of order dated 12/2/2013".
SCCH-24 46 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
39. It is relevant to state here that the order passed
either in Writ Petitions 18809 to 1840/2012 or in Writ
Appeal No 2125 and 28342864/2013 has not yet been set
aside by any of the appellate courts. Though the plaintiff
institution in compliance of order dated 12/2/2013 passed
in Writ petition stated to have made representation to the
state government with regard to the fee structure and to
recover the same from the government and though state
government stated to have not yet responded to the same,
but the plaintiff institution till this date has not
approached the court for redressal of their grievances
against the state government. Further incompliance of the
order passed in Writ appeal at ExD2, the plaintiff
institution has not taken any steps for modification of
order dated 12/2/2013 passed in the writ petitions,
instead they have filed the present suits.
40. The learned counsel for the defendants during the
course of argument bent upon contended that Writ
petitions no 1880918840/2012 is still pending before the
Hon'ble High court for consideration. The plaintiff
institution has not denied the same. As observed supra,
though the plaintiff institution has contended that the
disputed point raised in Writ petitions is referred to the
Division Bench and that in the said proceedings
permission was granted to the plaintiff to collect the fee
SCCH-24 47 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
from the students, but the plaintiff institution has not
produced any material to substantiate the same. The
defendants having admitted that disputed point has been
referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench but denied the fact
of permission given by the Hon'ble Division Bench to
collect the fee from the students and submitted that the
Division bench of Hon'ble High court has ordered to collect
fee in accordance with law and accordingly subsequent to
the order of Hon' ble High court the defendants have paid
fee for the academic year 20122013 to 2014 to 2015.
41. Now the material point is to be ascertained is how
much is the tuition fee fixed by the Management or by the
government for the year 2012-2013, 20132014 and 2014
2015, how much is the tuition fee paid by the defendants
for the said three academic year, what is the fee due in the
said three academic years etc. The plaintiff very strangely
has not pleaded or stated the said material facts in the
plaint. Vaguely claim was made without bifurcating the fee
fixed for the said three academic year, the actual fee paid
by the defendants for the said three years and the amount
due by the defendants for the said three years for the three
academic year.
42. If the evidence of Pw1 in all the nine suits are
perused, she has admitted that defendants in SC No 1059
of 2015 has paid fee of sum of Rs.15,575/ for the year
SCCH-24 48 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
20122013, Rs.12,000/ for the year 20132014 and
Rs.12,000 for the year 20142015 in all sum of
Rs.39,575/.
43. Pw1 has admitted that in SC No 1060 of 2015 the
defendants have paid sum of Rs.16,893/ for the year
20122013, sum of Rs.12,000/ each for the academic year
20122014 and 20142015 in all sum of Rs 40,895/.
44. Pw1 has admitted that in SC No 1061 of 2015 the
defendants have paid sum of Rs.15,575/ for the year
20122013, sum of Rs.12,000/ each for the year 2013
2014 and 20142015, in all sum of Rs.39,575/ towards
arrears of fee.
45. Pw1 has admitted that in SC No 1062 of 2015 the
defendants have paid fee for the academic year 20122013
a sum of Rs.16,895/, sum of Rs 12,000/ each for the
year 20132014 and 20142015, in all sum of
Rs.40,895/.
46. Pw1 has admitted that, in SC no 1063 of 2015 the
defendants have paid sum of Rs.15,575/ for the year
20122013, sum of Rs.12,000/ each for the year 2013
2014 and 20142015, in all sum of Rs.39,575/ towards
arrears of fee.
SCCH-24 49 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
47. Pw1 has admitted that in SC no 1064 of 2015 the
defendants have paid sum of Rs.15,325/ for the year
20122013, sum of Rs 12,000/ each for the year 2013
2014 and 20142015 , in all sum of Rs.39,325/
48. Pw1 has admitted that, in SC no 1065 of 2015 the
defendants have paid sum of Rs.15,325/ for the year
20122013, sum of Rs.12,000/ each for the year 2013
2014 and 20142015, in all sum of Rs.39,325/ .
49. Pw1 further has admitted that in SC no 1067 of
2015 the defendants have paid sum of Rs.15,575/ for the
year 20122013, sum of Rs.12,000/ each for the year
20132014 and 20142015, in all sum of Rs.39,575/
towards arrears of fee.
50. Pw1 has admitted that in SC no 1068 of 2015 the
defendants have paid sum of Rs.16,895/ for the year
20122013, sum of Rs.12,000/ each for the year 2013
2014 and 20142015, in all sum of Rs.39,575/ towards
arrears of fee .
51. As per the case of defendants, it is prior to the
institution of this suit they have paid the aforesaid sums
towards fee for the academic year 20122013, 2013 2014
and 20142015 but according to the plaintiff said sum was
paid subsequent to the institution of the suit. Though the
defendants have paid the sums to the aforesaid tune
SCCH-24 50 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
towards the arrears of fee as pr the direction of the hon''ble
high court for the academic year 20122013 to 2014 2015
but the plaintiff without deducting the said sums from the
suit claim by filing necessary amendment application to
that effect has continued the suit for the whole sum. It is
during the cross examination the payments made by the
defendants was elicited from the mouth of Pw1. The
plaintiff institution by suppressing the material facts has
proceeded with the suit without deducting the payments
subsequently made by the defendants from the suit claim.
52. If the evidence of Pw1 and the ExD3 is perused,
admittedly the plaintiff institution has obtained No
Objection certificate from the government. The NOC is
appended with conditions. In the condition no 5 direction
was given to the plaintiff institution to collect the fee from
the students one fixed by the government. The Pw1 having
admitted the condition no 5, deposed further that said
condition does not apply to ICSC School. It is the evidence
of Pw1 that in the ICSE Rules there is mention that the
condition annexed to ExD3 do not apply to ICSE schools.
But Pw1 has not produced the ICSE Rules to substantiate
the said submission. It is admitted by Pw1 that they have
not made any correspondence with the State and they have
not taken any legal action to the effect that condition no 5
do not apply to ICSE schools.
SCCH-24 51 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
53. So far as the contempt petition as per Ex. D4 filed
by some of the students against the Pw1 and the president
of the plaintiff institution for alleged disobedience of the
order of the Hon'ble High court passed in WP No 18809
18840 of 2012 dated 12/2/213 is concerned, it was
alleged by the contempt petitioners in the contempt
petition that, even though there was direction issued in the
writ petitions to the private management not to prevent the
children from attending the classes or tests or
examination, but the plaintiff institution has disobeyed the
order. But the plaintiff institution who is respondent in the
said contempt petition having appeared before the Hon'ble
High Court stated that they have not prevented any of the
students from attending the class, test and examination
but until the fee has been paid by the parents the students
cannot be said to be legally admitted to the institution.
Under the givens set of facts the Hon'ble High court has
observed that "Whether a person is not legally admitted to
the school merely because he has not paid the fee is the
question requires to be decided in the writ petition and as
the plaintiff institution has not prevented any of the
students from appearing the classes, tests or examination,
it has not violated the direction given by the learned single
judge". By giving observation to the aforesaid effect it has
kept pending the issue as to whether students have to pay
fee or not as prescribed by the plaintiff to be decided in the
SCCH-24 52 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Writ Petitions. The learned counsel for the defendant at
this juncture in support of their case has referred ruling
reported in:
"ILR 2011 KAR 424 Air Force School Parents Welfare
Association Represented by its Secretary / The State
of Karnataka by its Secretary Department of Primary
and Secondary Education and Ors".,
"Writ Petitions No 30981 to 31133 and 31522 of
2016 connected with WP Nos 31135 to 31148 ,
31149, 31739 to 30839 and 30840 to 30913 of 2016
Between Karnataka Parents Jarati Vedika ®
Bengaluru and Ors / State of Karnataka and Others".
"1996(7) K.L.J 664(DB) Between Associated
Managments of Primary and Secondary Schools and
Others / State of Karnataka and another".
54. Per contra the learned counsel for the plaintiff
institution at this juncture has referred the Judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble High court in WP No 6313 of 2017
C/W 33161 of 2017 and 11 other writ petitions filed by
different Educational Institutions. IN the said writ
petitions, all the judgments referred by the defendants
above referred were discussed. In the aforesaid writ
petitions different prayers were made like to declare the
SCCH-24 53 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
provisions of section 48 of the Karnataka Education Act as
arbitrary and unconstitutional, to issue a writ of
Mandamus by striking down the Karnataka Act no 25 of
2017 which is contrary to the provisions of various Central
Enactments, decisions of the Hon'ble High court and
Supreme court violation to Article19 (1) (G) and Article 21 o
the constitution , to hold and declare provisions of section
2(11) (A) and Section 124 (A) as inserted by the Education
Act by virtue of Karnataka Education (Amendment) Act
2017 as unconstitutional and illegal. To declare that
Karnataka Education (Second Amendment) Accused t 2017
which imposes section 48 and the newly inserted section
124A of the Karnataka Education Act on the private,
unaided Educational Institutions imparting education in
CBSE/ICSE patterns as unconstitutional and violative of
Articles 19(1)(G) of the Constitutions of India and etc, the
core question was to be answered in these writ petition is
"Whether the impugned notification/ Amendment / Rules
1995 and Rules 1999 are made applicable to private
unaided educational institutions and Minority Institutions.
The Hon'ble High court after referring the judgment
rendered in T.M.A Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy /
State of Karnataka Reported in (2003) 6 SCC 687 Civil
Appeals no 366 368 of 2004 and connected appeals which
were filed by the management of various Educational
Institutions questioning the validity of the Act, the case in
SCCH-24 54 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
Indian Schools Jodhpura etc has held that "fee structure of
the private unaided educational institutions should be
distinct and cannot be controlled by the Fee structures
imposed by the state. The private educational institutions
have a fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1) (g)
of the Constitution of India Particularly in respect of
admissions to the institution, and therefore these
institutions have an autonomy and independence to have
their own fee structure and that it is the prerogative of
private unaided educational institutions to have their own
fee structure. The private unaided educational institutions
should not be under the control of the government in so far
as fixing the fee is concerned, but it was also held that the
charging of fee should not amount to capitation fee or
profiteering or unreasonable and same must conform to
the constitutional provisions. Hence any interference by
the State in so far as fixing of fee by the private unaided
educational institutions amounts to violation of the law
declared by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of TMA Pai
Foundation and therefore sections 48 of the Act is not
applicable to the private unaided educational institutions.
In that view of the matter, section 5. and 48 of the Act is
struck down under Article 14 of the constitutions of India
as it confers unguided and unfettered power to the
government to interfere with the affairs of the private
unaided educational institutions and necessary Rules have
SCCH-24 55 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
not been framed by the state in this regard. Accordingly
the writ petitions are allowed and accordingly section 2(11
A) 48 and 124A of the Karnataka Education Act which are
contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India are held
to be unconstitutional in so far as private unaided
educational institutions. Rule 10(3) (a) (i) and 10(3) (c) of
the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification
Regulations, Prescription of Curricula etc) Rules 1995 and
Rule 4 and 7 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions
( Regulation of certain Fees and Donations) Rules 1999 are
held to be not applicable to the private unaided
educational Institutions.
55. Further in WP NO 27433 of 1995 c/w WP No
35431 of 2011 and four other writ petitions it was held
that Section 5 section 7(5) (b) Section 7(1)(e) and section 38
(1) (a) of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 , Rule 18(2)
and Rule 19(3) of Karnataka Educational Institution
(Classification, Regulation and Prescription and curricular
etc ) Rules 1995 and Rule 4 of the Karnataka Educational
Institutions ( Regulation or Certain Fees and Donations)
Rules 1999 are ultra vires . Sections 7(1)(f) and 41(3) of the
Karnataka Education Act 1983 does not apply to private
educational institutions, Rule 10(3)(c) (ii) and Rule 10(3) (a)
of Karnataka Educational Institution (Classification
Regulation and Prescription and Curricula etc) Rules 1995
SCCH-24 56 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
and Rule 4(4) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules 1999 in
so far as it pertain to private unaided educational
institutions are struck down and Rule 3(b) of the
Karnataka Educational Institutions (certain Terms and
conditions of service of Employees in Private Unaided
Primary and Secondary and Pre University Educational
Institutions, Rules 2005 is struck down.
56. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel
for the defendants that the order passed in the aforesaid
Writ petitions relied by the plaintiff institution is under
challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme court. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff institution has not disputed the
said fact .
57. If the materials placed on record more particularly
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High courts in the
aforesaid rulings and Writ petitions referred by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff Institution and defendants is
perused, it is true that in the order passed by the Writ
petitions referred by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
institutions clear observation was made to the effect that
fee structure of private institutions cannot be interfered
with by the government and that institution is free to
device its own fee structure subject to limitation, that there
can be no profiteering and no charging of captivation fee in
SCCH-24 57 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
respect of the minority educational institutions and
therefore the Act cannot be extended in respect of an
institution which is a minority private unaided education
institution etc but as submitted by the learned counsel for
the defendants, the order passed in the aforesaid writ
petitions are under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme
court, Whereas, at the cost of repetition the dispute raised
between the plaintiff institutions and the defendants
regarding fixation of fee ad fixation of responsibility of
private management school is still pending before the
Hon'ble High court. Further when the order passed in Writ
petitions as per ExD1 and Writ Appeal as per ExD2 is not
set aside or modified, the observation made in the
aforesaid order binds the parties to the said Writ
Petitioners and respondents and intern to the plaintiff and
defendants in the present suits.
58. It is further relevant to state here that in all the
suits at the first instance the plaintiff has filed suit only
against the father of the students. It is during the
pendency of the suit i.e in the year 2018 the plaintiff got
impleaded the respective students as defendant no 2. The
suit summons to the defendant no 2 was served in the
month of June 2018. Admittedly at the time of filing the
suit, the 2nd defendant in all the suits was minors. The
grievances of the plaintiff institution that the defendant no
SCCH-24 58 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
2 being the students perusing their studied during the
academic year 2012 2013 to 2014 to 2015 have not paid
the fee prescribed by the Institution. Hence while
instituting the suit itself the plaintiff ought to have arrayed
the minor students as defendant represented by their
guardian. But as observed earlier at the first instance, the
suit was filed only against the father of the minor students
and it is during the year 2018 brought the minor students
on record represented by their guardian i.e father . It is
vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
defendants that the suit as against defendant no 2 in all
the cases is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for
the defendants at this juncture has referred Order 1 Rule
10(3) CPC and submitted that the summons to the 2 nd
defendant was served during the year 2018 hence
limitation commence from the date of service of summons.
59. Order 1 Rule 10(5) CPC is reads thus :
"Order 1 Rule 10(5) : Subject to the provisions of Indian
Limitation Act 1877, section 22, the proceedings as against
any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have
begun only on the service of the summons.
60. When admittedly the summons to defendant no 2
was served during the year 2018 the period of limitation
runs from the date of service of summons during the year
SCCH-24 59 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
2018. The plaintiff has claimed arrears of fee for the
academic year 20122013, 20132014 and 20142015. The
limitation for recovery of money is three years If the period
of three years is reckoned from the date of service of
summons to the defendant, suit is maintainable only for
the recovery of fee for the period 20142015. Even if for the
sake of argument that plaintiff has proved its case even
then also plaintiff would not entitled to recover the alleged
arrears of fee for the Academic year 2012 2013 and 2013
2014 because claim is barred by limitation so far as said
two year is concerned. It is relevant to state here that in all
the nine cases it is the defendant no 2 who was the
student studying in the plaintiff institution for the
academic year of 2012 2013, 2013 2014 and 20142015 .
The defendant no 1 has no locus standi to contest the
suit in his individual capacity and he can contest the suit
only in his capacity as the guardian of minor defendant.
Hence when suit against the defendant no 2 so far as claim
made towards the fee for the year 20122013 and 2013
2014 is not maintainable as barred by limitation , then suit
against defendant no1 will also not survive for the said two
academic years.
61. It is further relevant to state here that as per the
very evidence of the Dw1 the 2nd defendants in all the suits
have now attained majority. But even after 2 nd defendant
SCCH-24 60 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
attained majority the plaintiff has not taken any steps to
discharge the 1st defendant from the guardianship of 2nd
defendant by filing discharge application. The suit still
continued against the 2nd defendant through their guardian
even after their attaining majority.
62. Even though plaintiff institution is a private
unaided institution and even though defendant no 2 in all
the suits have not obtained admission under RTE Act, even
though plaintiff institution is not getting any aid from the
government towards school fee of the students other than
the students who got admission under RTE Act but for the
reason that when defendants have already challenged the
fee structures in WP N 188918840/2012 which is still
pending for consideration where in interim order dated
12/2/2013 was passed and it was conferred in Writ
Appeal, under such circumstances this court is of the
opinion the question of payment of fee does not arise and
accordingly plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed in
the suits. Accordingly point no1 is answered in the
Negative.
63. Point NO 2 in SC No 1059/2015 to 1065/2015
and SC No 1067/2015 and 1068/2015 : In view of the
findings given on point no1 this court proceeds to pass the
following;
SCCH-24 61 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,
1067/2015 and 1068/2015
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff in SC No 1059/2015 to 1065/2015 and SC No 1067/2015 and SC No 1068/2015 are dismissed.
No Order as to cost.
Keep the copy of the judgment in the remaining eight cases.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Typed by P.O. in laptop, corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 1st day of February 2024).
(ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: P.W.1 Smt.Vyshali N WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: D.W.1 Sri.Shivaprakash P alias Sai Prakash SCCH-24 62 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015, 1067/2015 and 1068/2015 DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 Copy of Authorization Letter. Ex.P.2 Copy of Certificate of Affiliation. Ex.P.3 Copy of certificate of Registration. Ex.P.4 Copy of legal notice. Ex.P.5 Postal Receipt. Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the deposition in SC No.1075/2012 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of the deposition in OS No.8003/2015 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Judgment and decree in OS No.8003/2015 DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.D.1 Certified copy of common interim order passed in W.P.No.18809/2012 to 18840/2012 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of common order passed in Writ Appeal Nos.2125 & 2834 2864/2013 (EDNAD).
Ex.D.3 Certificate of NOC Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Order on contempt petition in CCC.No.1831 of 2013 and CCC Nos 34163418/2013 Ex.D.5 Certified copy of Judgment in SC No.1077/2012 Ex.D.6 Certified copy of award in SC No.1077/2012 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of notice in SC No.1059/2015 Ex.D.8 SPA deed executed by defendant.
SCCH-24 63 SC Nos.1059/2015 to 1065/2015,1067/2015 and 1068/2015 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Deposition of Smt.Vyshalli N given in SC No.1077/2012 (totally nine pages) Ex.D.10 SPA Deeds executed by defendants.
(ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
Digitally signed by ROOPASHRIROOPASHRI Date: 2024.02.22 15:03:32 +0530