Delhi District Court
) Ramakrishna Public School vs Mrs. Seema Bhasin on 18 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA THAKRAN
CIVIL JUDGE-II, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURT
CS No. 1005/21
CNR No. DLSW03-001697-2017
IN RE:
1) Ramakrishna Public School
Through its Manager
At: L-Block, Chanakya Place-Part 2,
New Delhi-110059.
2) Shri Ramakrishna Education Society
Through its General Secretary
At: A1/B-78, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 .....Plaintiffs
Vs.
Mrs. Seema Bhasin
W/o Mr. Vicky Bhasin,
R/o: C-45, Street No. 6,
Dashrathpuri, Dabri Palam Road,
New Delhi-110045. .....Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 19.09.2017
Date of reserving judgment : 28.03.2023.
Date of judgment : 18.04.2023.
Final Judgment : Decreed.
Suit No. 1005/17
Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin
Page no.1/56
JUDGMENT
1.The present suit has been filed for seeking the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant. It is averred in the plaint that defendant be restrained from coming within 100 meters near the school premises of the plaintiff school as she is a habitual rule breaker and has been creating nuisance in the plaintiff school premises, for which the school management has suspended her and still destructing the peaceful environment of the school. The brief facts as contained in the plaint leading to the filing of the present suit are as follows:-
I) That, on 01.04.2008, defendant was appointed as TGT (Hindi) in plaintiff school on the strength of a degree i.e. Shiksha Bharti-
Bachelor of Education from Mahilla Gram Vidhyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad.
II) In 2016 during the process of verification of educational qualification, it came to the knowledge of the management of the plaintiff school that Mahilla Gram Vidhyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad from which defendant Mrs. Seema Bhasin has obtained her B.Ed. degree was not recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC), thereafter, an enquiry was made to Association of Indian Universities (AIU) on 28.07.2016 and it was confirmed by the UGC, vide its letter dated 10.08.2016 that said university is fake university and the list of fake universities as per the website of UGC is enclosed.
III) That pursuant to the above clarification the Principal of plaintiff school served a Show Cause Notice dated 06.09.2016 to the defendant seeking clarification with respect to the degree Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.2/56 being found fake as to and as to why action under DSER'S 1973, be not taken against her. Defendant vide her letter dated 15.09.2016 admitted that she has done B.Ed. from Mahilla Gram Vidhyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad, however, claimed that the same is a valid legal degree. It is mentioned that she did not produce any document in support of her contention or to rebut the letter of UGC dated 10.08.2016.
IV) That in view of the aforementioned facts and background, on 06.12.2016, school's managing committee meeting was held, wherein the case of the defendant was discussed. Since it was found that degree possessed by her was granted by a university which was never recognized by the University Grants Commission and that any degree granted by such university could not be considered as genuine, it was decided that "Mrs. Seema Bhasin should be relieved from her duty immediately and this should not amount to penalty as per Rule 117 Explanation (c) of DSER'S 1973, which states that replacement of the unqualified teacher with the qualified one does not amount to penalty".
V) It is further mentioned that Mrs. Seema Bhasin is a habitual rule breaker. That being the daughter of previous manager of the school, Late Sh. Vidya Sagar, she is under a false belief that the school is her inherent property and that she can do as she likes. It is averred that teachers of school are under threat of defendant and various complaints to the chairman and manager of the school has been made by the teachers and the staff. VI) That, Late Sh. Vidya Sagar, who was the erstwhile owner of the school, bequeathed his property to his grandson Mr. Abhishek Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.3/56 Bhargava, who is the chairman of the school, vide his WILL dated 21.04.2016. The said WILL has been challenged by the defendant in CS(OS) 55/2017 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is mentioned further that no stay has been granted therein in favour of the defendant. Also mentioned that on 09.02.2017, counsel for the defendant herein clarified before the court that no ad-interim order is pressed at that stage. VII) That the Principal as well as the teachers of the school keep complaining against Mrs. Seema Bhasin regularly to the school management as she is regular in obstructing the day today working of school and threatening the teachers. That particularly on 14.03.2017 defendant created a huge scene in the office of the chairman of the school threatening him and his elderly grandmother to harm them physically and their reputation as well and to shut down the school. Defendant on 13.05.2017 barged into the room of the chairman of the school with brick in her hand and threatened the manager of the school to hit with the same and then kicked the door of his office with full force in order to break the same, this incident was recorded in the CCTV Camera installed in the school.
VIII) That on 07.08.2017 Mrs. Sarla Devi, wife of the previous Manager of the school, Late Sh. Vidya Sagar and mother of the Defendant alongwith the Chairman and current Manager of the school i.e. Mr. Abhishek Bhargava and Mrs Poonam Bhargava, filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, Dwarka, as the Defendant was constantly threatening them all, that she would harm their person and property of the school.
Suit No. 1005/17Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.4/56 IX) That on 11.08.2017, defendant without any authority or permission from the school authorities, out of her own accord, sent SMSs to all the parents that the school shall be celebrating Independence day on 12.08.2017, which was not even decided by the school authorities until then.
X) That on 13.08.2017, Manager of Plaintiff school filed a complaint against Defendant and her accomplice Mr. Aman Vrsoha under sections 43 &72 of Information Technology Act 2008 for breach of confidentiality and privacy of contract, for the above mentioned act as Defendant in connivance with Mr. Aman Vrsoha hacked into the Plaintiff School's computer system and used the data to send false messages to parents, which was completely unauthorised and not approved by school management.
XI) That actions of Mrs. Seema Bhasin are a major concern for school authorities, since she is habitual of breaking the rules of school and disturbing tranquil and peaceful environment of the school. That it is pertinent to mention herein that Mrs. Seema Bhasin has no regard for the discipline of school. XII) That due to the aforementioned actions of Defendant and her utter disregard for discipline, Plaintiff school is facing extreme embarrassment and suffered huge reputation loss. Whereas, earlier Plaintiff enjoyed a spotless reputation in the society, school is now facing loss of reputation in the neighbourhood as well as in the eyes of parents of students of School. Plaintiff School is unable to function properly because of constant intervention of Defendant and entering the school premises Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.5/56 forcibly and entering the administrative offices unannounced and creating ruckus over there.
XIII) That on 14.08.2017 School's Managing Committee meeting was held, wherein the misconduct of the Defendant was discussed and it was decided that, the Defendant shall be suspended from the school, in order to maintain the peace and tranquil environment of school.
XIV) That pursuant to the decision taken by the Managing Committee, order of Suspension was passed against the defendant on 14.08.2017 However, even after suspension the defendant has not mended her ways, she still visits the school regularly and obstructs the peaceful working of the school. XV) That on 01.09.2017 the defendant again forced her way into the school premises, and tried to lock rooms of the school, on being stopped by Mrs. Sarla Devi, Defendant pushed her off due to which she got injured. The Defendant also tried to tamper with attendance registers when Mrs Poonam Bhargava tried to stop her she attacked and injured her and also warned the staff present that if he tried to call police she would file molestation complaint against him. The Defendant also stole the SIM and hardware worth Rs. 1,50,000/- (approx) from the Smart Attendance machine installed in the school, for which complaint dated 06.09.2017 has been filed against her in Dadri Police Station. XVI) That Defendant is spreading rumours amongst the students of school, that school would be closed by March 2018, she is also pressurising the staff to submit the attendance register, teacher's dairy and other documents to her. Complaint with respect to the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.6/56 aforesaid actions of Defendant has been filed in the Dabri Police Station on 01.09.2017.
XVII) That on 04.09.2017 the Defendant again forcefully entered the school premises and broke and stole the CCTV camera installed in the operator's room, on being stopped by the operator, she threatened him of filing a complaint of molestation against him. The Plaintiff filed a complaint of the aforesaid events on 07.09.2017 in the Dabri Police Station, however, the Plaintiff feels helpless as the police also does not intervene in the situation to stop the Defendant since she has falsely stated to the police that the Hon'ble High Court has granted a stay in her favour and therefore the school authorities are injuncted from taking any actions.
XVIII) That the Defendant is not only a habitual rule breaker and offender; she has mastered the abuse of laws meant for safeguarding of women, to achieve her ulterior motives against the Plaintiff and for threatening the school staff, so that no one comes to the aid of the authorities. She is determined to not let the school function, by all means so much so that she has no regard of her own 83 years old mother, whom she has hurt and injured every time she tries to talk some sense into her. She further threatens the Chairman and Manager of the Plaintiff School of dire consequences if they try to stop her from carrying out her illegal actions in the school.
XIX) The abovementioned actions of the Defendant makes it amply clear that she is not just a threat to the school, she is also an extremely bad influence on the students of the school, whose young minds must be moulded to make them law abiding citizens Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.7/56 of the country. Defendant is an immoral and corrupt example to the students and is detrimental on their growth and development and they witness violent and disturbing incidents every day. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that this court restricts the defendant from entering or damaging the premises and property of the Plaintiff School. On these facts, the present suit has been filed. Hence this suit.
2. On service of summons the defendant has appeared and has filed written statement mentioning therein that the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands and there is no cause of action to file the present suit. The present suit is a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant. The present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC as the questions involved in the present suit had already been agitated by the defendant in the suit pending before the hon'ble High Court which has been filed for possession, partition etc and in the said suit main lis and dispute is alleged WILL and concerning with the ownership of the school and also concerning the functioning and daily affairs and control of the school and as such all these issues are subjudice there. It is mentioned that plaintiff did not file any written statement in the said suit, however, filed the present false and frivolous case. It is mentioned that the alleged caused of action has never been arisen and moreover directly or indirectly all issues concerning the functioning of the school touch even incidentally upon the core issue of ownership. The said issue of ownership has already been agitated and raised by the defendant in another suit which was filed much prior to filing of the present suit. Preliminary objection as to the suit being not properly valued for the purpose Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.8/56 of court fees has also been taken. Also it is averred that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the present suit has been filed with ulterior motive as the plaintiff wants to grab the suit property. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 41(1) (h) of Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff is having equal and efficacious remedy. Brief facts as mentioned in the written statement are that:-
a) That the defendant is real daughter of the late Vidya Sagar,who expired on 31.05.2016, Poonam Bhargava is also daughter of late Vidya sagar.
b) That the father of the defendant late vidya sagar was the owner of the property bearing no L-78,79,80 and 81 situated in khasra No. 663, Chankya Place, New Delhi -59.
c) That the said property was purchased by the father of the defendant Vidya Sagar in the name of his wife namely Smt Sarla Devi by selling the ancestral property of the family situated at Gurdasspur Punjab.
d) That Vidya Sagar was not having cordial relation with the plaintiff and plaintiff and her husband used to give merciless beating to the father of the defendant.
e) That on 03.04.2016 the father of the defendant vidya sagar was attacked by some unknown person under mysterious circumstances and in that attack the father of defendant received serious head injuries, due to which he was not fit stage of mind and Poonam Bhargava, her husband and their son Abhishek Bhargava took undue advantage of the said condition of the father and under coercion and duress somehow got executed the alleged will dated 21.04.2016 with regard to the property.Suit No. 1005/17
Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.9/56
f) That it is pertinent to mention that the alleged WILL is false, fabricated and same is illegal and the same has no legal value or sanctity in the eyes of law and on the basis of said alleged false WILL plaintiff is claiming herself the owner/manager of the school however said school was run by education society which cannot be transferred through WILL as per Societies Registration Act.
g) That as there is no other equally alternative efficacious and speedy remedy available to the defendant in the eyes of law except by way of filing the suit before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and same is pending.
3. In the written statement it is specifically denied that defendant is a habitual rule breaker and has created nuisance in the plaintiff school premises for which she was suspended by the school management. It is denied that on 01.04.2008 she was appointed as TGT (Hindi) on the strength of a degree from Mahilla Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad, it is mentioned that defendant is real daughter of Late Sh. Vidya Sagar and further submitted that during the lifetime of her father, he himself made defendant vice- principal and over all In-charge of the said school and she is running the said school smoothly. It is mentioned that defendant is looking the school from last more than 20 years and as far as her B.Ed. degree is concerned from the said university the matter is still pending before the court. It is submitted that Principal has no authority to issue Show Cause to any staff/teacher as matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in that school society filed its reply and admitted that WILL dated 21.04.2016 is a false, forged and fabricated document hence plaintiff has no Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.10/56 right upon the school. It is mentioned that the present education society in which plaintiff claim herself as a manager of the said society is false and no authority to pass any order is there and same is illegally running the school without any right. It is submitted that plaintiff was most disobedient towards the father of defendant and harmful towards her father and Late Sh. Vidya Sagar was not having any cordial relation with the plaintiff i.e. Poonam Bhargava. It is alleged that plaintiff had given merciless beating to her father with the intention to kill him and also stole cash of Rs. 25,000/- belonging to her father in August, 2003 and the father of the defendant was highly fed up and harassed at the hands of the plaintiff and her husband and due to this reason an apprehending danger to his life, the father of the defendant severed all his relations and connections with the plaintiff and her husband through legal notice dated 14.08.2003 got sent by him through his counsel Sh. Satish Chander Pathak, to the plaintiff and he also debarred the plaintiff and her family members from inheriting his properties and further the plaintiff was stopped from coming to the said school. It is specifically denied that Late Sh. Vidya Sagar bequeathed his property to his grandson Mr. Abhishek Bhargava, who is the chairman of the school vide his WILL dated 21.04.2016. It is submitted that defendant is managing and controlling all the affairs of the school and is having overall control of the said school and its premises but the plaintiff and Sh. Neeraj Bhargava have started harassing, torturing, humiliating and insulting the defendant and are interfering in the smooth functioning of the said school and not only this after the death of Sh. Vidya Sagar, the plaintiff is Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.11/56 illegally retaining all the fees and benefits of the said school inspite of objection of defendant. It is averred that plaintiff and her family members intends to grab the share of the defendant hence after the death of her father, plaintiff, her son and her husband started harassing the defendant with that intention. It is denied that on 11.08.2017 defendant without any authority or permission from the school authorities, out of her accord sent SMS to all the parents that the school shall celebrate Independence Day on 12.08.2017 which was not even decided by the school authorities. In this regard, it is submitted that defendant is a vice-principal of the school, on the other hand, plaintiff is claiming herself manager of the education society on the basis of false, fabricated WILL dated 21.04.2016 which is under challenge. It is submitted that plaintiff has created the managing committee itself and all the members are his own while as per the registration of Societies Act, Education Society cannot be transferred by one member in favour of a one person through a WILL. As to suspension it is mentioned that plaintiff or the managing committee has no authority to pass any suspension order till decision of the court. It is submitted that plaintiff and her son restrained the defendant just to harass and humiliate her and on this defendant made a complaint, on which FIR was lodged, against Mr. Abhishek Bhargava and his managing committee that they have no authority to pass any suspension order till decision of the court. It is specifically denied that the defendant spreaded rumours among the students that school would be closed by March 2018. It is specifically denied that on 04.09.2017 the defendant again forcefully entered the school Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.12/56 premises and broke the CCTV camera installed in the Operator's Room on being stopped by Operator. It is submitted that defendant is vice-principal of the school hence no need to take permission from anybody. It is further mentioned that defendant filed several complaints against the conduct of the plaintiff and other family members before the police authorities. Remaining avertments are denied and with this prayer for dismissal of the present suit has been made.
4. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed on 23.12.2019 which are:-
I) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and maintain the present suit?OPD II) Whether the suit property was owned by late Sh. Vidya Sagar, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff?OPP. III) Whether the suit is bad for suppression of material facts? OPD.
IV) Whether the suit has not been filed and verified by an authorized person? OPD.
V) Whether the suit is barred under Section 41h of Specific Relief Act? OPD.
VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction, as per prayer (i) and (ii) of the plaint? OPP.
VII) Relief.
5. In order to prove its case plaintiff school has examined five witnesses. On perusal of file it is revealed that the numbering of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff is not in proper Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.13/56 order. In view of the documents exhibited the witnesses are given below mentioned numbering in order to avoid any confusion. PW-1 is Mrs. Poonam Bhargava i.e. Manager of the school, PW- 2 is Mr. Shivam Dixit, Official from AIU, PW-3 is SI Surender Singh from CAW Cell, Dwarka, PW-4 is HC Sanjay Kumar from PS Dabri and PW-5 is Mr. Makhan Lal Meena who appeared on behalf of UGC.
6. PW-1 Mrs. Poonam Bhargava has stepped into the witness box in the capacity of Manager of the plaintiff school and she has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and she has also filed affidavit under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. PW-1/B, both bearing her signatures at points A and B. Additionally she has relied upon the following documents i.e.:-
Nature of documents Exhibited as
1. Photocopy of School's Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) Managing Committee Meeting dated 14.08.2017
2. Photocopy of show cause Mark E notice dated 06.09.2022
3. Photocopy of Minutes of Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) meeting dated 06.12.2016
4. Photocopy of order dated Mark A. 16.03.2018 in Crl. Revision
5. Photocopy of order dated Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) 24.03.2018 rejecting anticipatory bail application
6. Print from website of MHRD Mark B Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.14/56 and its subsequent links leading the list of Fake Universities as on June, 2015
7. Copy of admitted suit of Ex. PW-1/5 defendant bearing no. 55/17
8. Photocopy of WILL of Late Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) Sh. Vidya Sagar dated 21.04.2016
9. Pictures taken from CCTV Ex. PW-1/7 camera of the events happened on 13.05.2017
10. Photocopy of Complaint Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) dated 13.08.2017 under Sections 43 & 72 of Information Technology Act 2008
11. Photocopy of order of Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR) suspension of defendant dated 14.08.2017
12. Photographs of 01.09.2017 Ex. PW-1/10 and 04.09.2017
13. Photographs of 06.09.2017. Ex. PW-1/11
14. Affidavit under Section 65B Ex. PW-1/12 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
15. Order dated 06.07.2018 in Ex. PW-1/13 RCA No. 4/18
16. Photocopy of order dated Mark C 09.03.2018 in Crl. Revision No. 100/17
17. Photocopy of order dated Mark D Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.15/56 16.04.2019 in WPC No. 4001/2019
18. Certified copy of sale deed Ex. PW-1/14 dated 07.06.2001 During cross-examination she admitted that the plaintiff school belongs to Sh. Ramakrishna Education Society and same is being run by the said society. She has been issued the appointment letter by Sh. Ramakrishna Education Society which was issued in July, 2016. She has not filed the said appointment letter in the present case. The said appointment letter was issued by her mother namely Smt. Sarla Devi. Denied that she has not been given any appointment letter and for that reason she has not filed the same in the present case. Admitted that Mr. Abhishek Bhargava is her son and Ms. Seema Bhasin (defendant) is her sister and Late Sh. Vidya Sagar was their father. She does have the proof as to the fact that Late Sh. Vidya Sagar was the owner of the plaintiff school, volunteered he was owner of the land on which the school is built and is being run, however, the school belongs to the society. Learned counsel for the defendant then asked the below mentioned question:
Ques: I put it to you that you have wrongly stated in para 1(VI) at page 6 in your plaint that Late Sh. Vidya Sagar, who was the erstwhile owner of the school has bequeathed his property to his grandson Mr. Abhishek Bhargava by way of WILL dated 21.04.2016?
Ans: It was the suit property i.e. the land on which the school is built which was bequeathed by way of WILL. The school Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.16/56 belongs to the society. Yes her son Mr. Abhishek Bhargava has been made chairman of the school by the society. She has not placed on record any document showing thereby that Mr. Abhishek Bhargava has been made chairman of the school by the society.
Then asked- 'did you placed any authority letter issued by the society to Mr. Abhishek Bhargava which can show that he has been authorized to file, contest or represent the present case?', to which witness stated that no because she has been authorized to do the same by the School Management Committee and document qua the same already filed i.e. Ex. PW-1/1. Then asked- 'Did you placed any authority letter issued by the society to you which can show that you have been authorized to file, contest or represent the present case?', to which witness stated that she has been authorized by the School Management Committee and document qua the same already filed i.e. Ex. PW- 1/1.
Denied that she does not have any right to file the present case on behalf of the society, volunteered these like issues are dealt by the School Managing Committee and she has been authorized by the SMC. Denied that only the society could have filed the present case on behalf of the school. She is not sure whether she has filed or not any document which shows appointment of defendant as TGT teacher. Denied that she and her son Mr. Abhishek Bhargava has become self styled chairman of the plaintiff school. Admitted that Shri Ramakrishna Education Society was made party in the present case at a later stage by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC which was filed Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.17/56 by Mr. Abhishek Bhargava in his capacity as General Secretary of Shri Ramakrishna Education Society. Then witness was shown Ex. D-1 and asked a question whether the said document is the certificate of registration alongwith rules and regulations or not. The witness replied that first page of Ex. D-1 is certificate of registration of Shri Ramakrishna Education Society, however, she cannot say whether the photocopy of the rules and regulations filed alongwith the said certificate are correct or not. She can check whether she can file the original rules and regulations. In the year 2016, Mr. Abhishek Bhargava was appointed as General Secretary. She is not sure for what time period he was appointed as General Secretary, it may be one or two. She do not know whether Mr. Abhishek Bhargava contested election for the post of General Secretary of the society. She do not remember whether Mr. Abhishek Bhargava became member of the society or not. She has not placed any document on record which suggest Mr. Abhishek Bhargava became member of the society. She knows name of only few members of the society. Her mother Smt. Sarla Devi, her husband Mr. Neeraj Bhargava are members of the society at present. She is aware about the factum of death of Mr. Bhatia (treasurer) and her father Late Sh. Vidya Sagar, who were members of the society during their lifetime. In June, 2016 she had appeared before the society at the time of her appointment as Manager of the school. She was given call letter for calling her to attend the interview for the post of Manager. She has not filed any such document. Denied that she has not filed any such document because she was never called for interview for the post of Manager and for that reason no such Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.18/56 letter has been filed. Then asked- 'Can you produce letter of calling you for interview and your appointment as Manager of the school?', to which witness stated Yes, she can look for them and bring those documents.
Thereafter, on 17.12.2022 the witness when recalled for cross- examination after 26.11.2022, she had brought the documents asked for by the learned counsel for the defendant in the cross- examination. On 17.12.2022, she had brought the letter dated 20.06.2016 i.e. a call letter received by her from the Society, letter dated 03.07.2016 appointment of her as Manager of the school, original of these documents were brought and a certified copy of the members with their designation of Ramakrishna Education Society was also brought. During cross-examination on 17.12.2022 stated that she has not brought the bye-laws of the Society as the said document pertains to the said Society and not in her possession. Denied that she has not brought the bye-laws of the Society for the reason that she has no right to file the present suit. Denied that in para No. 2 (vi) she has mentioned in her plaint on the basis of WILL dated 21.04.2016 Mr. Abhishek Bhargava is appointed as Chairman of the School, volunteered this is an introductory line as to the designation held by Mr. Abhishek Bhargava and he was not appointed on the said post by virtue of the said WILL. Denied that on the basis of said avertment she obtained stay order from this court. Denied that she has received notice sent by Sh. Satish Chandra Pathak on behalf of Sh. Vidya Sagar S/o Late Sh. Milkhi Ram, R/o: A 1 B 78, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58, the copy of which is Mark A, volunteered she has given reply with regard to this notice before Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.19/56 the Hon'ble High Court in the probate proceedings. Admitted that Late Sh. Vidya Sagar was her father and earlier he was residing at A 1 B 78, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58. She do not remember exactly her tenure as Principal of the School prior to the year 2000. Denied that she was terminated as Principal of the School by her father Sh. Vidya Sagar, Manager & Director of the School vide letter Mark B, volunteered she herself had resigned due to her own personal reasons. Denied that this action of termination was taken by Late Sh. Vidya Sagar on account of misappropriation of School funds, giving beatings to Late Sh. Vidya Sagar. Admitted that order dated 19.02.2019 Ex. PW-5/D1 was given by the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government whereby the suspension of the defendant was revoked and the school management was directed to release the pay and allowances to the defendant as per rule 121 of DSEAR, 1973, volunteered this order has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court as recorded in the order sheet of this court on 20.05.2019. She do not know whether the defendant had filed any complaint with the Directorate on dated 16.08.2017 & 24.08.2017 as to alleged mismanagement of the school. She herself personally did not attended any inquiry qua the same and she is not aware about others also, volunteered she never received any notice or information of any such inquiry. Then asked- 'Is it correct that in the said inquiry it was held that the appointment of Mr. Abhishek Bhargava as Chairman and Ms. Poonam Bhargava as Manager is illegal and infructuous for the reason that they were not appointed by the Shri Ramakrishna Education Society registered, vide document (marked as Mark C)?' (Objection-placing on Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.20/56 record of this document of the year 2018 is objected to on the ground that why the said document was not placed on record earlier and also it has no mention in the pleading filed by the defendant), to which witness stated no such document or inquiry report is in her knowledge.
Admitted that order dated 05.01.2018 was passed in CS(OS) 55/17 titled Seema Bhasin Vs. Poonam Bhargava & Ors. Ex. PW-5/D2. The fact of suspension of defendant is very well mentioned in her pleading and it is a matter of fact that complaints were made by the defendant in this regard as to which she has mentioned in her evidence affidavit in para 23 & 24 and documents qua that are already on record. Admitted that in her plaint she has not mentioned in detail about the said complaints as mentioned in para 23 & 24 of her evidence affidavit. The CCTV installed in the School premises by the company (She is not aware about the name of the company) are managed by her and she do have the access of the said CCTVs. There is no permanent person kept for managing/operating the said CCTVs but as and when any issue arises a person is called to do the needful. The data from the CCTV was taken by her via pen drive. She has not filed the said pen drive on record. She do not remember for what time period she obtained the CCTV footage. The photographs placed on record by her has been taken/printed using a coloured printer available with her. Again said she is not sure exactly what pictures were got printed from the said printer or whether from outside from a shop. She took assistance of a technician for the same (on objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff it was directed that no further questions Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.21/56 on this aspect shall be asked as the said photographs has already been admitted by the defendant on 28.04.2018). If need be the pen drive can be placed on record. Denied that the Management Committee of the School is fictitious and was never formed by the Society. Then asked- 'Is it correct that you created a self styled Management Committee and thereafter wrongly suspended the defendant from the School?', to which witness stated- No, the Management Committee was formed as per Rule 59 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and as per rules the defendant was suspended. Again asked- 'Is it correct that the defendant has submitted to the management her degree given to her by the Mahila Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag?', to which witness stated that she is not aware about the same but she has filed it in the case subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Admitted that appointment of defendant was done at the time when her father was alive but she cannot say whether he himself appointed the defendant or any other person. She cannot say whether her father himself has helped the defendant to pursue this course. She do not remember whether any judgment of Karnataka High Court was given to the School at the time of suspension of defendant. Denied that Ex. PW-1/1 is a fake document. Denied that Ex. PW-1/8 is a false report on behalf of the school. Admitted that the status report filed by the police dated 22/03/2018 in the complaint case before the court of Sh. Sidharth Malik, the then Ld. MM, Dwarka, the copy Ex. PW- 5/D-3, volunteered FIR was registered on it and even the chargesheet has been filed before the concerned court. Denied that at the time of suspension of the defendant she was looking Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.22/56 after the administrative work also. Denied that the defendant was appointed by the director of Society Sh. Vidya Sagar to look after the administrative work. It is not also in her knowledge. She cannot say whether any complaints were made or cases were filed against the defendant prior to her joining as Manager in the school i.e. before July, 2016. Denied that she made false complaints against the defendant as she wanted to grab the school property. Learned counsel for the defendant then has asked the below mentioned questions:
Ques: Can you show any complaint filed on record against the defendant made by the school staff?
Ans: No. Denied that the averments made in sub Para xvii of the plaint are wrong.
Ques:Can you give any proof the CCTV camera was broken and stolen?
Ans : This is the subject matter of criminal cases going on against the defendant.
Denied that the averments made in sub Para xv of the plaint are wrong and false. She did not get medical check up done on account of injuries sustained by her on 01/09/2017. Denied that no such incident happened and she did not sustained any injuries. Denied that the averments made in sub Para vii and para x of the plaint are wrong and false.
Ques: Is it correct that the society has not given any termination letter to the defendant till date.
Ans: The defendant is not an employee of the society, therefore, there is no occasion for the society to issue such letter.Suit No. 1005/17
Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.23/56 Ques: Is it correct that the society has not given any Show Cause Notice to the defendant till date.
Ans: The defendant is not an employee of the society, therefore, there is no occasion for the society to issue Show Cause Notice. Ques: Is it correct that you are answerable to the society for all the acts of School Management.
Ans: The relationship of school management and the society is governed by the DSER, 1973.
Ques: Is it correct that the staff member and employees of the school are appointed by the society.
Ans : It is wrong.
Denied that she filed a false case and a false affidavit.
ii) PW-2 SI Surender Singh has brought Status Report Entry No. 336 dated 01.02.2018 for the purpose of examination. They have also sent the reply of same to HAC on 12.03.2018. The Status report is exhibited as Ex.PW3/1.
iii) PW-3 HC Sanjay has brought the original FIR No. 0124 dated 20.03.2018 under Section 420/468/471 and FIR No.0171 dated 12.04.2018 under Section 380/427 IPC and the same are Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2 respectively.
iv) PW-4 Shivam Dixit is a Software Engineer in SIS Division, AIU. He has brought the records of letter dated 01.08.2016 for the purposes of examination. The records are SIS Division Dispatch Register Copy, AIU Main Dispatch Register Copy, AIU Letter, UGC Notification of Fake Universities dated 30.06.2016 and UGC Public Notice of Fake Universities dated 07.10.2020. The records are exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 (colly).
Suit No. 1005/17Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.24/56
v) PW-5 Makkhan Lal Meena is Assistant in University Grants Commission. He brought the letter dated 10.08.2016 for the purpose of examination Ex. PW-5/1 (Colly), list of fake universities existing as on 10.08.1994 issued by UGC Ex. PW- 5/2 (colly), response from the UP Government Ex. PW-5/3 (Colly), letter dated 06.08.2016 received from Ramakrishna Public School alongwith degree given to Seema Bhasin from Mahila Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag for verification Ex. PW-5/4 (colly) and public notice on fake unversities dated 07.10.2020 which is also available on UGC website Ex.PW5/5 (colly).
7.In order to rebut the case of plaintiff, defendant has examined four witnesses including herself as DW-1. She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A bearing her signature at points B and C and has relied upon the following documents i.e.:-
1. Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of memorandum, rules and regulations and byelaws of the Rama Krishna Education Society.
2. Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dated 16.08.2017.
3. Ex. DW-1/3 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dated 24.08.2017.
4. Ex. DW-1/4 (OSR) i.e. legal notice dated 14.08.2003.
5. Ex. DW-1/5 (OSR) i.e. written statement filed by defendant no. 3 and 4 in the case pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. Ex. DW-1/6 (OSR) i.e. complaint dated 16.08.2003.
7. Ex. DW-1/7 (OSR) i.e. police complaint dated 23.02.2017.
8. Ex. DW-1/8 (OSR) i.e. police complaint dated 12.07.2017.
9. Mark D1 i.e. letter dated 17.04.2017 to the Education Officer.
10. Mark D2 i.e. letter dated 29.07.2017 to the Education Officer.Suit No. 1005/17
Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.25/56
11. Mark D3 i.e. police complaint dated 17.08.2017. During cross-examination stated that she has read the affidavit of evidence in entirety before tendering the same. Admitted that it has wrongly been mentioned in her affidavit that Shri Rama Krishna Education Society owns Rama Krishna Public School. The words locus-standi means that the plaintiff has no right to institute the present suit. Yes along with her affidavit she has exhibited document to show plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit. She has filed document Ex. DW-1/1 i.e. byelaws, rules, regulation of the education society in this regard. In the list of members of the society there is no mention of name of Sh. Abhishek Bhargava, Sh. Neeraj Bhargava and Ms. Poonam Bhargava and hence it can be said that they have no locus-standi to file the present suit. She cannot say whether the list which she has filed and rely upon is an old list. Denied that she has not filed any document which shows that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit.
(Court observation: Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that a new list of members was filed and same was taken on record vide order dated 17.12.2022).
She was never member of Rama Krishna Education Society. Admitted that in her affidavit she has mentioned that the present suit has been filed with intention to grab the School property. Denied that the present suit is not a property dispute. Admitted that she has not filed any document to show that Smt. Poonam Bhargava was not appointed as Manager of the School, volunteered she was never a Manager of the School. Admitted that she has not filed any document to show that Sh. Abhishek Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.26/56 Bhargava was not appointed as Chairman of SMC of the School, volunteered he was never the Chairman of SMC of the School. Admitted that she has not filed any document to show that SMC of the School has not been constituted by the society. Admitted that vide order dated 05.07.2018, Rama Krishna Education Society had been impleaded as plaintiff no.2 in the present suit. She has challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court. Denied that the said order had never been challenged by her. She do not remember the case number in which she has challenged the order dated 05.07.2018. Denied that there is no matter pending in the Hon'ble High Court wherein order dated 05.07.2018 has been assailed. In her evidence affidavit she has mentioned that Sh. Abhishek Bhargava is not eligible to be appointed as member of the society he being in blood relation with Smt. Poonam Bhargava and Sh. Neeraj Bhargava. She cannot say what is the legal position in this regard and whether this position was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in judgment dated 02.05.2012 in WPC.6965 of 2011. Admitted that plot no.78-81 on which Rama Krishna Public School is situated was under the ownership of Late Sh. Vidya Sagar. Then asked- 'Please inform as to on what post you were initially appointed in the Rama Krishna Public School', to which witness stated that she was appointed as TGT Hindi, volunteered since the opening of the School in the year 1985 she was teaching and she was also the Admin in the year 2003. The Rama Krishna Education Society was registered in the year 1988. Again said she got confused as to the year of opening of the School. In the year 1988 her education qualification was B.A. She has not tendered Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.27/56 any document to show the same. She is aware that all the private unaided schools in Delhi are governed by Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. She is not aware whether the rules contained in DSEAR's 1973 were followed at the time of her appointment, volunteered her appointment was done by her father and he had given her the appointment letter. She cannot say that her father in his individual capacity had no authority to appoint her without following the due procedure laid down in Rule 96, DSER,1973. She has filed her appointment letter but she has not tendered the same in her evidence. Denied that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. Then witness was shown a photocopy of her B.Ed degree from Mahila Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag Mark DW-1/A, the witness has admitted the same to be her degree. The degree is of the year 1991-92. Then again witness was shown original appointment letter dated 01.04.2008 for the post of TGT Hindi and joining report which bears her signatures at point A & B. Same has been admitted by the witness and accordingly, exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P1 (OSR) and Ex. DW-1/P2 (OSR). She had written a letter to her father Late Sh. Vidyasagar expressing her intention to resign as TGT Hindi, volunteered she was holding two posts i.e. one as Admin and other as TGT Hindi and there was burden on her, therefore, she had written the said letter and asked her father till the time the other teacher is not arranged, she will hold both the posts. She had written the above said letter may be in 2014. At this stage, witness has perused her written statement and evidence affidavit, it is not so mentioned in her written statement or her evidence by way of affidavit, volunteered nothing was done by Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.28/56 her father on this letter. She do not recollect that during the continuance of the present suit, she had also filed a counter claim before this very court, in the present case itself. Then witness was shown the original certified copy of the said counter claim and order-sheets qua the said counter claim. She do not remember whether she had withdrawn the said counter claim or not. The copy of the counter claim and the order-sheets of the case are now exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P3 (OSR). Admitted that the Deputy Director of Education (PSB) had passed an order dated 19.02.2019 whereby her suspension was revoked in her matter and the same has been admitted by the witness and is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P4. Admitted that in WPC 4001 of 2019, the same has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 16.04.2019. She has seen the order and the same is admitted and is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P5. She do not have any appointment letter for the post of Vice-Principal. Denied that she was never appointed as Vice-Principal of the School. Then asked- 'Have you filed any appointment letter of yours for the post of Administrative In-charge of the School?', to which witness stated that Yes, copy of the appointment letter dated 01.09.2003 has been filed with her written statement. The same is marked as Mark DW-1/B. Denied that the said letter does not mention her appointment as Administrative In-charge of the School. She is not aware if the post of Administrative In-charge even exists in the School. She is not aware as to any statutory rules in existence for the appointment for the post of Administrative In-charge of the School, volunteered in her case, society members had a meeting and she was called and appointed as an Administrative Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.29/56 In-charge of the School. She has not mentioned these facts in her written statement. Denied that she was never appointed as Administrative In-charge of the School. Denied that she was not running the School. Denied that she was not doing any Administrative work. Admitted that for Independence Day celebrations, in the School in the year 2017, she had sent information SMSs to the parents. She was not authorized in writing or verbally by the School Principal to send these SMSs, volunteered she used to send the same SMSs every year having authorization thereof from the Chairman of the School i.e. her father. Denied that she was not given any said authority by her father to send these SMSs. Denied that her father was not the Chairman of the School at that point of time. Denied that before the year 2017 or afterwards, she had never sent any such SMSs. Admitted that she has filed a Civil Suit for partition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with respect to the property of Late Sh. Vidyasagar. Denied that Ex. DW-1/4 dated 14.08.2003 is a forged and fabricated document. Then witness was shown three video clips, when the first video clip dated 04.09.2017 was shown to her wherein one lady is depicted placing a table in the corner of the room and a chair thereon and after climbing the same, seen removing the CCTV Camera. Witness was asked whether it is she who is seen in the said video, to which witness answered in affirmative. Then after seeing the video, the witness states that nothing such happened as shown in the video. Then witness was shown three video clips, when the second video clip dated 13.05.2017 was shown to her wherein one lady is depicted carrying brick in her left hand and she is banging on the door.
Suit No. 1005/17Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.30/56 Witness was asked whether is that you in the video, to which witness answered in negative. Then again witness was shown three video clips, when the third video clip dated 06.09.2017 was shown to her wherein one lady is depicted removing the CCTV Camera in the School premises. Witness was asked whether was that she in the video, to which witness answered in negative. The said videos are taken on record in the form of Pen Drive and exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P6. (Counsel for the defendant has objected to placing on record the said Pen Drive at this stage of evidence).
(Court Observation: While showing the first video when immediately witness was asked as to whether she is the one depicted in the video, witness answered Yes and thereafter, when seen committing mischief, statement in the remaining two videos has been changed).
Witness further states that she keep arranging the furniture and other things but these video clips are forged and tampered. Admitted that as to committing mischief i.e. destroying the CCTV Cameras, an FIR no. 171/2018 PS Dabri was registered against her and in the said FIR, charge-sheet have been filed and she had appeared before the concerned court Ld. MM-02 Dwarka Courts, South West, New Delhi. The same is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P7. Denied deposing falsely.
ii) DW-2 is Mr. H.R. Meena. He has seen the inquiry report which is already marked as Mark C and he states that he identify the signature of the then concerned official i.e. D.D.E/(W-B) at point A. Document is now Ex. DW-2/A. During cross- examination stated that he is not aware if the said inquiry report Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.31/56 was ever given to the school. Again said he think it was not given to the school. He has no knowledge if any action was taken pursuant to the aforementioned inquiry report.
iii) DW-3 is Aman Vrsoha. He has worked in Ramakrishna Public School for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18. He had provided VSTV 760 security system, complete automated notifications systems for attendance purpose and complete CCTV system. He was engaged by Late Sh. Vidya Sagar in the year 2016. He knew Seema Bhasin and they were given instructions for messaging by Ms. Seema Bhasin, Mr. Mukesh and the Principal Ms. Divya Jain. There is an internal dispute between two sisters and Mr. Abhishek was putting his claim on the basis of WILL and Ms. Seema Bhasin was looking after the administration work till September 2017 to his knowledge. No damage was ever caused to his system by Ms. Seema Bhasin and she had made payment of Rs. 1 Lakh to him towards his bill. The maternal grandmother and defendant had put lock on the main gate as he was told by Mr. Abhishek and he had helped Mr. Abhishek to break these locks. Again said, he received message and he sought his help and he provided his help. He told Mr. Abhishek that the copy of the WILL he was having did not bear the thumb impression of the executant Late Sh. Vidya Sagar and therefore the same is doubtful. He became suspicious as to he being in collusion with Ms. Seema Bhasin therefore, he stopped his entry in the school. In August 2019, he met Mr. Abhishek and he told him not to remove the system from the school and he will pay Rs. 50,000/- annually towards the rent for the hardware. He has not made any police complaint against anyone as to the any Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.32/56 mischief having been caused to the system. He used to listen to both the parties and work accordingly. He had sent a message to the students/parents on 11.08.2017 on instructions of the defendant, for which Seema Bhasin was suspended and it was told to him by her. He was not the employee of plaintiff No. 1. He was the contractor of the whole security system installed in the plaintiff No. 1/School. Admitted that she had entered into a contract with regard to this with Late Sh. Vidya Sagar. He has a copy of the said contract. Then witness was shown MOU dated 17.02.2016 on which he acknowledges his signature at all pages at the bottom and the same is Ex. DW-3/P1. Admitted that the term of the agreement was only for one year i.e. till February 2017, volunteered it was extendable as per mutual understanding. Admitted that after February 2017 he has not singed any new MOU with the plaintiffs. He knew Mr. Abhishek Bhargava from the date of signing of the present agreement i.e. 17.02.2016. Denied that he was in contact with Mr. Abhishek Bhargava before the signing of the MOU. Again said he is not sure if he had corresponded with Mr. Abhishek Bhargava signing of the MOU dated 17.02.2016. Admitted that e-mail dated 13.02.2016 has been sent by Mr. Abhishek Bhargava to him at his e-mail ID. He has seen the said mail and the same is Ex. DW-3/P2. He has not submitted any bill of Rs. 1 Lakh against which Ms. Seema Bhasin has paid the said amount to him. The said payment was given to him in 2017, however, he do not remember the date of the same. Denied that no such payment was ever made by the defendant to him. He did not issue any receipt to the defendant for receipt of this amount. He did not issue any receipt to the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.33/56 plaintiff No. 1/School for receipt of this amount. Admitted that in March 2018 he had sent a mail to the school with respect to clearing of his outstanding. Mail dated 13.03.2018 is Ex. DW- 3/P3. Witness has gone through the document Ex. DW-3/P3. Admitted that he has not mentioned the receipt of Rs. 1 Lakh in the Ex. DW-3/P3. Admitted that this payment of Rs. 1 Lakh has not been accounted by him in his GST returns. He is a graduate in Arts. He does not have any experience of law. He does not have any legal qualification also. Denied that after the expiry of his contract his ingress and egress from the school was also stopped. Denied that his contract was not extended on account of his unsatisfactory performance. Admitted that he has received a mail dated 18.07.2017 from Mr. Abhishek Bhargava, the same is Ex. DW-3/P-4. Admitted that he had purchased the stamp paper and submitted an extension of MOU to Mr. Abhishek Bhargava which is Ex. DW-3/P5. Admitted that this agreement was never signed by Mr. Abhishek Bhargava. Denied that his association with the school came to an end in February 2017 itself. Denied that Mr. Abhishek Bhargava did not ask him, not to remove his system from the school. He might have received the small payment of Rs. 10-15 thousand after the expiry of the MOU. They issue receipts for the payments. Denied that WILL of late Sh. Vidya Sagar is not doubtful. He used to travel continuously to Shirdi in 2017-18. However, in 2018, he shifted permanently to Shirdi. His Aadhar No. 3923 7655 0627 bears the address at Shirdi and the same is Ex. DW-3/P5. Admitted that he had received a letter from Smt. Sarla Devi dated 27.07.2017 and same is Ex. DW-3/P6. He is not aware if initially his name was Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.34/56 not included in the list of witnesses. He is not aware if the same was included only after the demise of Smt. Sarla Devi on 26.12.2022. He had entered into the contract (MOU) with the School with reference from Smt. Sarla Devi. Denied that he is giving this testimony to help the defendant in the criminal cases pending against her for breaking of the cameras and smart class attendance system. Denied that damage was caused to system by the defendant. Denied that no incident of breaking of locks happened at School. Denied that the locks of the premises were opened by Mrs. Sarla Devi from her key. Denied that he is giving this testimony to help the defendant in the various litigations which are going on between her, her sister and nephew. Denied deposing falsely.
iv) DW-4 is HC Parveen. He has brought the summoned record i.e. complaint dated 15.05.2017 and 28.07.2017 filed by defendant and action taken report SI Naresh Kumar PS Dabri dated 22.04.2018 which is now exhibited as Ex. DW-4/1 to Ex. DW-4/3. During cross-examination stated that he has no knowledge what happened to FIR No. 135/2017 further qua which he has submitted the action taken report. Denied deposing falsely.
8. Both the Ld. Counsels has argued their case and I have perused the record carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that after following the due procedure the defendant has been suspended as per the rules contained in DSEAR, 1973 as her B.Ed. degree was found fake as the same having been obtained from a university not recognized by UGC and not only this the conduct of the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.35/56 defendant does not warrant her entry in the school as she is of violent nature and her conduct is detrimental to the interest of the students studying in the said school. Counsel further argued that th chairman or the manager of the school etc has no information as to constitution/revival of the new alleged society of which now defendant herself has become member. Further argued that DW-3 is an unreliable witness and is acting in connivance with the defendant, not only this various FIRs has been registered against the defendant. Counsel has also argued that the suspension order of the defendant which was revoked by the Directorate of Education has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and she should not be allowed to visit the school as she disturbs the students studying in the school and threatens the office bearers with dire consequences.
10. Learned counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff does not have the locus standi to file the present suit. Further argued that the degree obtained by the defendant cannot be said to be a fake degree, reliance placed upon Smt. Raminder Duggal Vs. Kendriya Vidayalya Sangthan & Ors. decided by CAT- Bangalore on 25.10.2004 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.: 326/2005 (S-CAT) in the case of Kendriya Vidayalya Sangthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Raminder Duggal. Learned counsel further argued that no one has appointed Mr. Abhishek Bhargava as chairman of the school and the property of the school belongs to the Society and the Society cannot be bequeathed by a fake WILL and the suit relating to the forged WILL is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Also argued that the prayer clause is vague and there has to be specific Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.36/56 time period for which the prayer of injunction etc have been sought, it cannot be for indefinite period and how the relatives etc can be restrained in view of the prayer clause and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is vague and in self styled manner plaintiff and her son appointed themselves as Manager and Chairman of the school. It has also been argued that the suspension of the defendant has been revoked by the Education Department and there is an enquiry going on as to their appointment and the school was not the property of Late Sh. Vidya Sagar and the sole intention of the plaintiff is to grab school on the basis of the forged WILL. The defendant being the legal heir of late Sh. Vidya Sagar has equal right in the properties of late Sh. Vidya Sagar. Reliance placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Narayana Prasad Vs. Krishan Prasad & Ors.2018 (4) CLJ 1 S.C. 11.Issue No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 All these issues are taken up together as being interconnected. At the very outset, it is relevant to mention here that, during the pendency of the proceedings the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff was allowed whereby defendant was restrained in view of the prayer clause till the disposal of the present suit and an appeal against the said order was filed which was also dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 06.07.2018 and copy thereof is Ex. PW-1/13. Apart from this during the pendency of the proceedings an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of suit was filed and the objection taken by the defendant in the written statement in this regard was dealt with and same was dismissed vide order Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.37/56 dated 28.04.2018 and the Ld. Predecessor gave a finding that the matter in issue in the present suit is not directly and substantially an issue in the other civil suit pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
12.Vide order dated 05.07.2018, on the objection taken by the defendant, an application for impleadment of Ramakrishna Education Society was filed whereby the Society was impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 in the present suit. In the said order the Ld. Predecessor of this court observed that 'counsel for defendant has failed to point out any authority whereby suit filed through Manager of the School is barred. Plaintiff school has been organised under the Delhi Education Act and is a legal entity as such and has been granted with a legal status and therefore plaintiff No. 1 i.e. School cannot be said to be a non-existing legal entity incapable of filing or defending a suit. In this regard, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the said order was never challenged by the defendant and same has attained finality and is binding on both the parties'.
13. It is not out of place to mention here that after the conclusion of evidence and the final arguments having already been advanced by the plaintiff side, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by Mr. Aman Vrsoha on behalf of the Ramakrishna Education Society claiming therein himself to be President of the Society. In order to gain clarity as to how he became President thereof he was examined on 28.03.2023. Mr. Aman Vrsoha has been examined as a witness in the present case as DW-3 on behalf of the defendant. In his statement recorded on dated 28.03.2023 under Order X CPC he disclosed that he and Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.38/56 defendant went to meet Mr. Virender Mishra, the only surviving member of old Ramakrishna Education Society who told them that there is no Society existing as on date and it needs to be revived, thereupon, he made himself and defendant member of the society and the other four persons namely Sh. Vicky Bhasin (husband of defendant), Sh. Krishan Tyagi (husband of the daughter of defendant namely Poojha Bhasin), Mr. Puneet Tyagi and Mr. Vivek Tyagi (both known of Mr. Krishan Tyagi). He disputed the documents relied upon by the plaintiff as to they being member/office bearers of the society. He further stated that the copy of the members of the Society was given by him and the defendant in the SDM Office on 22.03.2023 but till date no letter approving/authorizing him as President of the Society has been given by the SDM office to him or any other members. He further stated that till date no returns has been filed by the newly constituted Society. On the said date, at the time of recording of his statement, it was observed by the court that for answering the queries of the court Mr. Aman Vrsoha time and again looked/resorted to the defendant for answering the queries and he apprised that he has done all the acts as above mentioned on being asked by the defendant and visited the offices with her.
14. In this regard, it is very much relevant to mention here that on 06.03.2023, Mr. Aman Vrsoha was examined-in-chief but his cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the plaintiff as the evidence affidavit was not supplied in advance, thereafter, he was cross-examined on 18.03.2023 and in the intermediate period he visited the office of SDM, Rajouri Garden and did enquiry with the defendant as to the documents relied Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.39/56 upon by the plaintiff and took pro active steps to become President of the Society but he did not uttered even a single word about the same in his evidence on 18.03.2023 or immediately thereafter. He claims that he became President of the Society on 22.03.2023, now question arises what prevented him from bringing the said fact or the acts done by him in association with the defendant to the notice of the court. When the evidence concluded and arguments were also advanced from the side of the plaintiff then the application under Section 151 CPC seeking deletion of the name of the Society from the present suit was filed and it was averred that Smt. Poonam Bhargava has never been authorized to file the present suit. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that on the objection taken by the defendant the Society was impleaded as plaintiff No. 2 and now the new so called President stepped into the court and claimed deletion of name of the Society. It is averred that Mr. Abhishek Bhargava was never elected as General Secretary of the Society and he and his mother/PW-5 has filed forged and fabricated documents as they being office bearers and having been appointed by the Society. If acts done by Mr. Aman Vrsoha and the defendant are looked into then it is manifest therefrom and from the statement of Mr. Aman Vrsoha recorded on 28.03.2023 that no proper procedure has been followed by them for becoming the office bearers of the Society. How the Society of which defendant has now become a new member can prosecute the defendant herself. As per the documents filed on 28.03.2023 defendant has now become the General Secretary of Shri Ramakrishna Education Society. Though objection in this regard has been taken by the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.40/56 defendant but no specific issue as to the same in the present suit has been framed. Vide a separate order of even date this court has already given a finding that firstly nothing has been placed on record to show that no proper procedure has been followed by PW-5, her son and others as to their appointment as Office bearers/Members of the Society and secondly if the argument of the defendant side is taken into consideration then in that case the defendant, Aman Vrsoha and others also has adopted to the same procedure and in fact acted in hasty manner to support their contention by becoming office bearers of the Society behind the back of the plaintiff/previous office bearers of the Society. There is nothing on record which shows that the Society/its members as mentioned in the letter dated 05.07.2016 are no more the members of the Society or they having been suspended/withdrawn from their respective membership. If at this stage, the contentions of the defendant are taken note of as to the documents being forged etc then it would open a new trial within this instant trial. The defendant has not challenged the said documents by filing a civil suit/counter claim seeking their nullity.
15. The plaintiff school has filed the present case through its Manager. In order to show the locus standi PW/Poonam Bhargava has filed the minutes of the meeting of the School Management Committee dated 14.08.2017 Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) wherein she is shown to be Manager and Sh. Abhishek Bhargava as Chairman of the plaintiff school and on the basis of the same the present suit has been filed through Smt. Poonam Bhargava. The said minutes of meeting also mentions the presence of the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.41/56 nominee on behalf of Director of Education and nominee on behalf of Advisory Board and the said minutes of meeting has been signed by 21 members/office bearers/representatives. The present suit is only for permanent injunction and is not a declaratory suit having been filed by the defendant challenging the chairmanship of Mr. Abhishek Bhargava or the capacity of Smt. Poonam Bhargava as they being not the office bearers of the school at present. The question whether the school is being properly run or not or there is any misappropriation of funds as alleged by the defendant by them or they having been not appointed as such by set procedure, rules and regulations in this regard is a matter to be looked into by the Directorate of Education and in this regard learned counsel for defendant has also argued that an enquiry is being made by the Directorate of Education, Delhi. It has been argued that the matter is subjudice in this regard.
16. The onus to prove that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and maintain the present suit or the suit having not been filed or verified by the authorized person or bad for suppression of material facts or the same being barred under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act was on the defendant. The Manager of the School has shown her locus standi to file the present suit by filing Ex. PW-1/1 and other relevant documents. The present suit is a suit for injunction simplicitor and the same has been filed on the alleged cause of action that defendant is creating nuisance by visiting the school and the illegal acts done by the defendant in the school premises causing breach of peace and tranquility has been reported to the police also from time to time and FIRs in Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.42/56 respect thereof has also been registered which are subjudice, further there are observations made by the Ld. Predecessor of this court in order dated 05.07.2018 that counsel for the defendant has failed to point out any authority whereby suit filed through Manager of the school is barred, further that plaintiff school has been recognized under the Delhi Education Act and is a legal entity as such and has been granted with a legal status, therefore, plaintiff No. 1 cannot be said to be a non-existing legal entity in capable of filing or defending a suit, which were never challenged by the defendant side. Even during trial also no evidence has been adduced to the effect that Smt. Poonam Bhargava has no locus standi to file the present suit, in fact during cross-examination when asked PW Poonam Bhargava stated that the staff members and the employees of the School are appointed by the School and not the Society. At present, it is Mr. Abhishek Bhargava who is having control over the affairs of the plaintiff school and other office bearers including Manager of School and no other person, therefore, I am also of the considered opinion, in view of above, the plaintiff does has the locus standi to file the present suit and the same is not barred under the law. No evidence is adduced as to other issues. Defendant has failed to discharge her onus qua the above mentioned issues and accordingly, issue No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 are decided in negative and against the defendant.
17. Issue No. 2The onus to prove the issue whether the suit property was owned by late Sh. Vidya Sagar, the predecessor-in-interest of PW Poonam Bhargava and the defendant was on the plaintiff. The Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.43/56 defendant in her cross-examination has clearly admitted that the property i.e. L78-L81, Chanakya Place, Delhi was owned by late Sh. Vidya Sagar. The present suit is for permanent injunction sought against the defendant restraining her from visiting the school and is not about the property on which the school has been built. Learned counsel for defendant has argued that Smt. Poonam Bhargava and her son intend to grab the school on the basis of false WILL alleged to have been executed by late Sh. Vidya Sagar in favour of the son of Smt. Poonam Bhargava. A civil suit i.e. CS(OS) 55/2017 as to the properties/the alleged WILL has already been filed by defendant which is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. When questioned about the school being the property of late Sh. Vidya Sagar as mentioned in the plaint and the same could not have been bequeathed, PW Poonam Bhargava clarified that the land on which the school is built has been bequeathed by way of WILL dated 21.04.2016 by late Sh. Vidya Sagar to his grandson Mr. Abhishek Bhargava, however, the school belongs to the Society. As per law, the facts admitted need not be proved. Defendant has categorically admitted in her evidence and also in written statement that the property on which the school is built was owned by her father. Accordingly, issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and it is also hereby clarified that the land on which school is built is called 'suit property' herein and not the school.
18. Issue No. 6Now coming to the relief sought by the plaintiff in the present suit. By way of present suit a decree of mandatory and permanent Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.44/56 injunction has been sought against the defendant, her agents and relatives etc from coming within 100 meters near to the school premises of the plaintiff situated at L Block, Chanakya Place, Part-II and from maligning the reputation of the plaintiff school and creating any nuisance in the neighborhood of the plaintiff school and from spreading false and baseless accusations against the plaintiff and her family in the neighborhood has been sought. In this regard, learned counsel for the defendant argued that the prayer sought by the plaintiff is vague and she cannot be stopped for an indefinite period from visiting the school. In my considered opinion also, the prayer sought by the plaintiff needs to be made subject to the order of the Hon'ble High Court as now the issue of degree of defendant is subjudice there.
19. The plaintiff has averred that the defendant was appointed as a TGT (Hindi) on 01.04.2008 and in the year 2016 during the process of education qualification it came to the knowledge of the school management that Mahila Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad from which the defendant had obtained her B.Ed. degree was not recognized by the University Grants Commission and thereafter an enquiry was made to Association of Indian Universities (AIU) on 28.07.2016 who vide its letter dated 01.08.2016 confirmed the university being fake and the UGC vide its letter dated 10.08.2016 stated that the said university is not recognized by the UGC and is a fake university and list of fake universities as per the Website of UGC also enclosed. In this regard, PW-2 Mr. Shivam Dixit from AIU and PW-5 Mr. Makkhan Lal Meena from UGC has been examined and they had brought the requisite record as to the correspondence done Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.45/56 between the school and the AIU and the UGC. Record of the dispatch register, AIU, UGC notification of fake universities dated 30.06.2016, UGC public notice of fake universities dated 07.10.2020 is exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 (colly). PW-5 had brought the letter dated 10.08.2016 Ex. PW-5/1 (colly), list of fake universities existing as on 10.08.1994 issued by UGC Ex. PW- 5/2 (colly), letter dated 06.08.2016 received from plaintiff school alongwith degree of defendant for verification Ex. PW-5/4 (colly) and public notice of fake universities dated 07.10.2020 {available on UGC website is Ex. PW-5/5 (colly)}. From the above said documents it can be clearly said that the university from which the defendant has done her B.Ed. degree is a university not recognized by the University Grants Commission. In this regard, learned counsel for defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.:
326/2005 (S-CAT) in the case of Kendriya Vidayalya Sangthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Raminder Duggal, wherein it was held that Mahila Gram Vidyapitha has been recognized by the Ministry of Education, Government of India as per letter dated 29.09.1965 which has not been withdrawn as on date and the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was upheld and it was observed that there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner and no fraud has been committed by her. The status of the Mahila Gram Vidyapitha, Prayag, Allahabad is of an unrecognized university. In the said case, the petitioner had obtained another B.Ed. degree from IGNOU in the year 2005 and the same was produced before the authorities which is not the case in the present matter. It is pertinent here to mention that Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.46/56 whether the degree obtained by the defendant is a valid degree in the eyes of law or not is a matter at present seized before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It has come in the evidence that when show cause notice dated 06.09.2022 was issued, reply to which was filed by the defendant on 15.09.2016, a School Management Committee (SMC) meeting was called and vide minutes of meeting dated 06.12.2016 i.e. Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) defendant on finding the degree having been obtained by the defendant from a fake university was relieved from her duty as TGT (Hindi). Various allegations has been levelled against the defendant as to misconduct, assault, threatenings, theft, breach of confidentiality etc, as to which SMC meeting was held wherein the misconduct of defendant was discussed and she was suspended for maintaining peace on 14.08.2017 i.e. vide order Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR). The plaintiff has averred that despite this also defendant used to visit the school and on several occasions she entered the school forcibly, on 01.09.2017, she tried to lock rooms of the school and on being stopped she pushed her mother Smt. Sarla Devi, there are allegations of theft of SIM and hardware worth Rs. 1.5 lakh as to which DW-3 has also been examined. It is relevant to mention here that on 13.08.2017 the Manager of the school also filed a complaint against defendant and DW-3 Mr. Aman Vrsoha under Section 43 and 72 of Information Technology Act for breach of confidentiality and privacy of contract for hacking into the school's computer system and using date for sending false messages to the parents without approval of the school management. DW-3 has supported the version of the defendant and testified that no mischief to the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.47/56 hardware system was committed by the defendant. DW-3 in his evidence has failed to show any document that his contract was extended by the school authorities after February 2017. DW-3 seems to be an interested witness as the Manager of the school has got a complaint lodged against him and the defendant and he being interested witness is also manifest from all the acts mentioned supra as to he becoming President of the Ramakrishna Education Society behind the back of the existing office bearers of the plaintiff school and he having taken so much plight for the same despite he being residing at Shirdi, Maharashtra permanently from 2018 and same is manifest from Ex. DW-3/P5, his testimony does not seem impartial and truthful and therefore not of much relevance.
20. Now coming to the issue of suspension, defendant has been suspended vide minutes of meeting Ex. PW1/1. The said order of suspension has been challenged by the defendant before the Directorate of Education and the Directorate of Education vide its order dated 19.02.2019 Ex. DW-1/P4 has revoked the suspension of the defendant, which has been challenged by Smt. Poonam Bhargava before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC 4001 of 2019 and the operation of the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Directorate of Education whereby suspension of defendant was revoked has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.04.2019 and on admission thereof by defendant it is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/P5.
21. The defendant testified that she was appointed as a TGT (Hindi) teacher in the plaintiff school during the lifetime of her father and her version is that it was her father who got her Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.48/56 obtained the degree of Bachelor of Education from the said university at Allahabad. Her appointment letter 01.04.2008 for the post of TGT (Hindi) and joining report is Ex. DW-1/P1 (OSR) and DW-1/P2 (OSR) respectively. During evidence the defendant took the stand she was holding two posts and in this regard due to burden on her she wrote a letter to her father expressing her intention to resign as TGT (Hindi), who told her that till the time other teacher is not arranged, she will hold both the posts. In cross-examination she stated that the letter was written may be in 2014. When questioned about whether it is so mentioned in her written statement or evidence of affidavit she admitted that same is not mentioned anywhere and volunteered that nothing was done by her father on the said letter. Initially, when this present suit was filed, a counter claim bearing No. 2/18 was also filed by the defendant, however, later the same was withdrawn on 13.08.2018 by giving a separate statement by the defendant seeking permission to file her counter claim before appropriate forum. Vide counter claim declaration as to show cause notice and suspension order dated 14.08.2017 being null and void and permanent injunction was sought, and liberty was sought to file the same before the Education Tribunal, in view of the same, the same was dismissed on the same date with liberty as prayed for to file it before the appropriate forum. The defendant in the said counter claim in para 3 and 15 mentioned that the above referred letter written by her to her father was accepted. Two contrary statements has been made by the defendant, in her evidence she stated that nothing was done by her father on the same, however, in the counter claim she stated Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.49/56 that the letter was accepted by late Sh. Vidya Sagar. In her cross-
examination recorded on 14.02.2023, defendant has denied the fact that she has filed any counter claim and feigned ignorance as to the same having been withdrawn. In her written statement she has nowhere mentioned that she was made Administrative In- charge of the school, new facts has been added at the time of testimony. In her written statement, she has mentioned that during lifetime of Sh. Vidya Sagar himself, she was made Vice- Principal and overall In-charge of the school and during evidence she stated that she was performing the administrative work of the school. During her evidence she stated that she is not aware if the post of Administrative In-charge even exists in the school or any statutory rules in existence for the appointment on the said post. When questioned as to any appointment letter having been given for the post of Vice-Principal she answered in negative. When questioned as to sending SMSs to the parents of children prior to Independence Day on 12.08.2017 which was not even decided by the school authorities until then, without the authority of the school, she admitted sending the said SMSs to the parents and admitted that she was not authorized in writing or verbally by the school Principal to send these SMSs, she volunteered she used to send the same every year having authorization thereof from late Sh. Vidya Sagar. She denied having been authorized to do so by her father. She admitted that after 2017 she did not sent any such SMSs. A complaint has been got registered by the Manager of the School in this regard against the defendant and Sh. Aman Vrsoha for hacking the school's computer system and using data to sent Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.50/56 false messages to the parents without approval of school management.
22. The defendant in her cross-examination stated that she is not aware whether the rules contained in DSEAR, 1973 were followed at the time of her appointment as TGT (Hindi) Teacher or not, she volunteered her appointment was done by her father and he had given her the appointment letter. She cannot say that her father in his individual capacity had no authority to appoint her without following the due procedure laid down in Rule 96, DSER, 1973. Whether the correct procedure as per law and the rules and regulations in this regard was followed or not is now to be decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Since, now the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is seized of the matter as to the suspension of the defendant having been done as per law or not, no finding or opinion herein is returned as to the degree of the defendant being a valid one or not or her suspension having been done as per the procedure laid down in Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
23. No coming back to the relief sought, various allegations has been levelled by the plaintiff/Manager of the School against the defendant as to her misconduct, she being a habitual rule breaker of a mischievous person. The plaintiff has levelled various allegations against the defendant as to her misconduct. It has been averred that on 11.08.2017 defendant without any permission from the school authorities sent Independence Day SMSs to the parents, the defendant herself has admitted this avertment in her cross-examination that she had sent those SMSs without any written or verbal permission from the school Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.51/56 authorities. In this regard, a complaint against her and Mr. Aman Vrsoha for breach of any confidentiality and privacy of contract has been filed and same is subjudice. It has also been alleged that on 01.09.2017 the defendant had forcibly entered the school and tried to lock the rooms of the school and on being stopped she pushed her mother and she also tried to tamper the attendance register etc and she stole SIM and hardware worth Rs. 1.5 lakh as to which a criminal complaint bearing No. 24553 of 2017 has already been filed and same is subjudice. In this regard, photographs Ex. PW-1/10 (colly) has been filed showing defendant therein. It has also been averred that another complaint was also filed against the defendant for pressurizing staff and for spreading rumour that the school will remain closed. It has also been averred that on 04.09.2017 and 06.09.2017 despite suspension of the defendant she forcibly entered the school premises and broke and stole CCTV Cameras installed in the operator's room/school and on being stopped she threatened him of filing false molestation case. Qua the said allegations photographs Ex. PW-1/10, Ex. PW-1/11 has been filed. Apart from this during the evidence of the defendant she was shown three video clips. During cross-examination when the first video clip dated 04.09.2017 was shown to her wherein one lady is depicted placing a table in the corner of the room and a chair thereon and after climbing the same seen removing the CCTV Camera, defendant was asked whether it is she who is seen in the said video, defendant answered in affirmative, meaning thereby she was present in the school premises on 04.09.2017 and in the said video she is clearly shown committing mischief with the Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.52/56 CCTV and the school property. When the remaining videos dated 06.09.2017 wherein lady is depicted removing the CCTV Camera and the video clip dated 13.05.2017 wherein one lady is depicted carrying brick in her left hand and she is banging on the door was shown to the defendant, defendant changed her statement and refused she being the one shown in the videos. During the evidence itself this court had observed that when the first video was shown and defendant was asked whether she is the one depicted in the video, witness/defendant admitted that she is shown in the video but when seen committing mischief by carrying brick in her hand, banging the door or removing CCTV Cameras, she changed her statement. The said videos has been taken on record in the form of pen drive Ex. DW-1/P6. Learned counsel for defendant objected to placing on record the said pen drive at the stage of evidence. As per Order VIII Rule 1A(4) CPC and similar provision under Order VII Rule 14(4) CPC, nothing in the said rules mentioned shall apply to the document produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses. The photographs Ex. PW-1/10 and Ex. PW-1/11 of the contents of the said video were already placed on record and not only this as to the same FIR has been registered against the defendant, proceedings of which she is facing so it cannot be said that defendant was taken by surprise when the said videos were put to her during the cross- examination. In order to show the conduct of the defendant PW-4 HC Sanjay Kumar from PS Dabri was summoned who had exhibited the original FIR No. 0124 dated 20.03.2018 under Section 420/468/471 IPC and FIR No. 171 dated 12.04.2018 under Section 380/427 IPC i.e. Ex. PW-4/1 and Ex. PW-4/2 Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.53/56 respectively. An anticipatory bail application No. 1481/2018 as to FIR No. 124 was filed which was dismissed by the Ld. Special Judge, Dwarka on 24.03.2018 i.e. Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR). The same is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings and does not have bearing on the outcome of the present case but the CCTV recordings and the photographs placed on record though later on denied by the defendant stands proved because of the own part admission of the defendant. In the civil cases, the burden of proof is the preponderance of probabilities and is not as strict as in a criminal case. It has been averred that defendant has been booked under Kalandra under Section 107/151 Cr. P.C. vide DD No. 34B dated 01.08.2017 and she had furnished the bail bonds before the Ld. Special Executive Magistrate and she had challenged the said proceedings before the court of Ld. ASJ, Dwarka and her revision petition was dismissed on 09.03.2018 which is Mark C. Not only the manager of the school but the defendant also filed a criminal complaint against her for using inappropriate words on 17.08.2017, inquiry therein was conducted by Ms. Omvati Malik, ACP/CAW Cell/DWD/New Delhi, wherein it was concluded by her that defendant was anxious to take possession of the school by using police department as a tool and when she failed to do so she leveled baseless allegations against the officials of PS Dabri, in this regard, PW-3 SI Surender from CAW Cell, Dwarka was summoned with a status report dated 01.02.2018 which is Ex. PW-3/1. Again the same does not have bearing on the present case but points out towards the highly acrimonious relation between the parties.
Suit No. 1005/17Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.54/56
24. At present, admittedly, the relations between the defendant and the Manager of the school who is her sister are strained. Sufficient evidence has been placed on record to show that defendant forcefully entered the school premises despite the suspension order though the same has been revoked by the Education Department by later on stayed and now subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 4001/2019. The plaintiff is a school where education is imparted to many children and their future is nurtured, where they are taught to be law abiding citizens. The relief of injunction is an equitable relief and is discretionary in nature. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies. It is the duty of the court to see who will suffer irreparable loss if the relief sought is granted or not granted. The principle of comparable mischief applies. Looking at the violent conduct of the defendant as shown in the photographs and recorded in the CCTV, it would not be in the interest of the school and the children studying there if defendant is allowed to visit the school till her suspension order is revoked. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and evidence led, defendant is restrained from visiting the school premises or create any nuisance there or outside the school premises within 100 meters of the school till her suspension order is revoked by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit is held maintainable and the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs Suit No. 1005/17 Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.55/56 whereby defendant is restrained from visiting the school premises or create any nuisance there or outside the school premises within 100 meters of the school till her suspension order is revoked by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 4001/2019.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
27. No order as to cost.
28. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPIKA THAKRANDEEPIKA Date:
THAKRAN 2023.04.18 17:06:11 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Deepika Thakran) on 18.04.2023. Civil Judge- II, Dwarka Courts South West District, New Delhi 18.04.2023.Suit No. 1005/17
Ramakrishna Public School Vs. Seema Bhasin Page no.56/56