Delhi District Court
Palak Mahajan vs The Secretary Of Education on 30 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE03
(EAST DISTRICT), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 98/18
In the matter of:
Palak Mahajan
S/o Ram Chander Mahajan,
R/o 28/76, Street No. 15,
Vishwas Nagar, Delhi ................ Appellant
Versus
1. The Secretary of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Near Vidhan Sabha,
Civil Lines, Delhi - 54
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Secondary Education
Shiksha Kendra, 2 - Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi 92
2. Greenfield Public School
(through its Principal)
GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden, Delhi ..............Respondents
Appeal filed on 28.08.2018
Arguments heard on 19.08.2019
Judgment pronounced on 30.08.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Vide Order dt. 01.03.2018 Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge (East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi rejected plaintiff's plaint. Aggrieved therefrom, plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. Parties shall be referred to in this judgment as per their ranks before Ld. Trial Court.
2. Plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, is as follows: Plaintiff completed his senior secondary education from Greenfield Public School, wherein his RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 1 of 6 name was recorded as Palak Mahajan. Plaintiff has also completed his B. Tech. from an Engineering College. Plaintiff 'decided to change' his name to Love Mahajan. To this effect, plaintiff got issued a public notice in a newspaper as also in the Gazette of India (weekly). Notwithstanding this, CBSE did not change his name in its official records. He issued notice under section 80, CPC to the defendants, but to no avail. He avers that he has fundamental right to change his name. He further avers that he wants to go out of India for better prospects and in order to apply for passport he needs to have his name changed. He thus sued the defendants for a decree of declaration that his name be changed to Love Majahan with a direction to them to change his name accordingly in their official records.
3. The impugned Order is as follows: "1. The case is listed for Order qua the maintainability of the present suit. The arguments qua the said aspect were heard on 20.02.2018. During the course of arguments on 20.02.2018, a specific query was put to the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff, regarding the right being asserted by the plaintiff, Sh. Palak Mahajan, by way of the present suit i.e. whether the plaintiff is asserting a Constitutional or Statutory or Contractual or Common/Civil Law right, by way of the present suit. In response to the said specific query, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had filed a copy of Office Order no. CBSE/CP/PS/2015 dated 16.02.2015 issued by Dr. Satbir Bedi, Chairperson, CBSE and submitted that by way of the present suit, the plaintiff is asserting his statutory rights arising from the said order.
2. In the plaint of the present suit, the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that by way of this suit, the plaintiff is asserting the rights arising from the aforesaid office order. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that by way of this suit, the plaintiff is asserting his rights arising from the aforesaid Office Order.
3. Since, in the plaint of the present suit, as it exists today, the plaintiff has nowhere asserted the existence of any right as per which, he can seek the desired changes in the records of the defendants, since, there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the change in the name of the plaintiff, since, in the prayer of the plaint, the plaintiff has not specifically delineated the records of the defendants, which are to be changed and since, the existing defendants viz. (a) Secretary of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (b) Chairman, RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 2 of 6 CBSE and (c) Green Fields Public School, are non entities in law, the plaint of the present suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC,1908.
5. After preparation of the decree sheet by the reader, the files shall be consigned to the record room."
4. Together with the present appeal there is an application under section 5, Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in the filing the appeal. Plaintiff - appellant states that he had filed a Writ, but withdrew the same in order to file the instant appeal. On this ground, he seeks condonation of delay.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. First to the application for condonation of delay. In terms of Article 116 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 the time period to file the appeal before this Court is 90 days from the date of the decree/order. The impugned order was passed on 01.03.2018. The present appeal was filed on 28.08.2018. Thus, there is a delay of about 87 days in filing the present appeal. This Court is of the view that delay in filing the instant appeal ought be condoned for reasons mentioned in the application. It is ordered accordingly.
7. Now to the impugned order. This Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. To my mind, the plaint was not one that could have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a), CPC. It is a fundamental rule of pleadings that the pleadings shall only set out the 'material facts', and that too in 'concise form' on which the claim is based or resisted. The pleadings of the parties are not required to set out the law. Or, for that matter, pleadings are neither required to contain the evidence that is to be proved. Order VI Rule 2 (2), CPC says, "Every pleadings shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved." Next, Appendix A of the Schedule to CPC contains several forms of RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 3 of 6 plaint(s). A bare perusal of the same reflects that a plaint to be maintainable need not set out the law on which the plaintiff sues. Therefore, to say that the plaint was not maintainable and merited rejection under Order VII Rule 11 (a), CPC as it did not plead about the law / office order under which the plaintiff asserted his rights would be erroneous. Secondly, there is nothing in law that prevents an individual from altering his name. Cases are not unknown where an individual has changed his name out of advise received from some soothsayer / astrologer or otherwise. And, to my mind, no law prohibits such change of one's own name. But whether on account of his name change, the plaintiff could have got the desired relief(s) from the Court against the defendants - respondents was an altogether different question, and which depended on the applicable laws / byelaws / office order/ rules and regulations and their interpretations. And the plaintiff was certainly not required to set out the applicable laws / byelaws / office order / rules and regulations under which his right flowed for the reliefs claimed by him. It bears repetition to state that pleadings are required to contain only and only the 'material facts', and that too in 'concise form'. And the plaintiff - appellant had indeed done his duty of setting out the 'material facts' in 'concise form' in the plaint. It was actually for the Court to apply those material facts in the light of the applicable laws / byelaws / office order / rules and regulations. Next, under the law where there is a right, there is a remedy and this is expressed in the legal maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium'. Therefore, if a person can have a right to change his name and no law prohibits it, he cannot be told that he can have no remedy under the law. It would be an entirely different matter that the remedy that he takes recourse to ultimately may not find favour with the Court. But to say that he has no remedy under the law and that the lis that he has brought is not maintainable would be incorrect. Section 9 of CPC mandates that Courts shall have jurisdiction to try 'all suits of civil nature' excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 4 of 6 barred. The suit before the Trial Court was certainly of civil nature. In Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126, it was observed, "There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever, frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit." It is as clear as daylight that plaintiff - appellant in his plaint was not required to plead the 'existence of any right to sue'. It was enough for him to have set out the 'material facts' in 'concise form', It was in fact for the Court to apply those 'material facts' to the applicable laws / byelaws / office order / rules and regulations. The other ground for rejection of the plaint, as per Ld. Trial Court, was that the plaint did not 'specifically delineate the records of the defendants, which were to be changed'. This view is again incorrect. Plaintiff - appellant had specifically stated in his plaint that he had completed his 'senior secondary education' from the concerned school under CBSE. He had further stated in the plaint that he had approached CBSE for change in the 'education certificates'. His prayer, inter alia, was that the defendants - respondents be directed to change his name in their 'official records'. To my view, this was sufficient. Yet another ground for rejection of the plaint, as per Ld. Trial Court, was that the plaintiff had sued those who were 'nonentities in law'. But this is no ground to reject the plaint. To say that few of the defendants were 'nonentities in law' and as such plaintiff's lis is not maintainable and that has no legal remedy would be incorrect. If at all they were 'nonentities in law' there was nothing that had stopped the Court from invoking the powers conferred upon it under Order I Rule 10, CPC to add those who were actually 'entities in law'. Conversely, the plaintiffappellant ought to have been given an opportunity to do the needful to array the actual 'entities in law'. To take an example, if a student suffers injury RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 5 of 6 to his person in his school campus on account of negligence of school staff and he sues the school for damages, can he be told that he has no remedy as the school whom he is suing is not an entity in law, or that he has not specifically pleaded in his plaint that he is suing and asserting his rights under the Tort of Negligence which is a common law remedy and that there are judicial decision setting out the law of tortious liability of negligence and the ingredients thereof. Certainly not. If in such a case, the school is a 'nonentity in law', then that student ought to be given an opportunity to array the actual 'entity in law' or the Court can exercise its own power under Order I Rule 10, CPC to add the actual 'entity in law'. And he also cannot be told to plead in his plaint, the law under which he asserts his right and what his legal rights are. In such a circumstance it cannot be said that his lis is not maintainable and that his plaint runs foul of Order VII Rule 11, CPC as it discloses no cause of action.
8. Conclusion The impugned Order dt. 01.03.2018 of Ld. Trial Court rejecting the plaint is liable to be reversed. It is ordered accordingly. This appeal is accepted. A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Trial Court shall now proceed as per law. Parties / their counsels shall appear before Ld. Trial Court on 02.09.2019 at 02:00 pm. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by MURARI PRASADMURARI SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2019.08.30 14:29:44 +0530 COURT ON 30.08.2019 (M. P. SINGH) ADJ03 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI/30.08.2019 RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 6 of 6