Delhi District Court
Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta vs The Principal on 31 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA, CIVIL JUDGE09,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 97950/16 (548/14)
Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta
S/o Shri Tara Chand Gupta
R/o 123A, PocketA,
Mayur Vihar PhaseII,
Delhi - 110095. .............Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Principal,
Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue,
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi.
2. Deputy Director of Education (D.D.E.)
(C/ND), Directorate of Education,
Plot No. 5, Jhandewalan, Delhi.
3. Director of Education,
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi. ..............Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 80,000/.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 1 of 21
Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
Date of Institution : 01.08.2012
Date of reserving Judgment : 10.01.2017
Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 80,000/ against the defendants.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows : The plaintiff was appointed as a Senior Computer Teacher on 01.04.2011 by defendant no. 1 at monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/ on verbal order. Later on, a certificate in this regard was issued by Vice Principal on the direction of the defendant no. 1 dated 01.10.2011. However, this date has been wrongly mentioned as 01.10.2011 and actual date of his appointment was 01.04.2011.
3. The plaintiff has been teaching class 11 th and 12th for computer science and he used to do miscellaneous work like I.T. work, registration work of IX to XII, CBSE admission work of all classes and also registration of patrachar classes of IX to XII for 2000 students approximately on the instructions of defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 assured the plaintiff to pay extra for extra work but he has not been given a single penny.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 2 of 21Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
4. The plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 several times to mark his attendance in the attendance register but the defendant no. 1 avoided his request on one pretext and the other. However, after making several requests, the defendant no. 1 allowed the plaintiff to mark his attendance since 01.09.2011 as full time teacher from 8 AM to 2 PM.
5. On 12.10.2011, the wife of the President Vietnam inspected the school and at that time, the defendant no. 2 also visited the school premises on 10.10.2011, 11.10.2011 and 12.10.2011. At that time, the plaintiff had worked till 12.30 night for completing the work of computer lab and other works of school.
6. The plaintiff demanded his salary and payment for extra work but no payment has been made. On 04.12.2011, the plaintiff again requested defendant no. 1 to pay the salary and payment of extra work but defendant no. 1 threatened the plaintiff and asked him not to mark his attendance in the register. The defendant further threatened not to come in the school for teaching purpose.
7. On 06.12.2011, the defendant no. 1 strictly prohibited the plaintiff to mark his attendance and to teach the student. The service of plaintiff was terminated without any prior notice to him and without making payment of earned wages/payment and payment of extra work for the period 01.04.2011 till 04.12.2011. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to Suit No :548/2014 Page 3 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. defendant no. 1 and 2 on 20.12.2011 and called upon to make the payment of salary for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ for the period from 01.04.2011 to 04.12.2011 @ 10,000/ per month. Defendant no. 1 sent false and frivolous reply dated 04.01.2012 and also sent three cheques for a sum of Rs. 5,000/, Rs. 5,000/ and Rs. 4,500/ and mentioned the back date thereon i.e. 20.12.2011 in respect of extra work but did not make payment of Rs. 80,000/ earned wages/monthly salary which was for the period of 01.04.2011 to 04.12.2011.
8. The plaintiff again sent another legal notice to the defendants on 03.01.2012 for making payment of Rs 80,000/ but the defendant no. 1 again sent false reply. On 07.12.2011, the plaintiff made a written complaint to DDE (C/ND), Jhandewalan, Director of Education. The DDE called upon the Principal (defendant no.1) along with attendance register of guest teacher. Immediately, the Principal came to office of DDE without attendance register and on asking about attendance register, he told that he forgot to bring attendance register and he would submit the same in due course of time in presence of father of plaintiff. On 19.12.2011, the defendant no. 1 made a complaint to police that the Guest Teacher Attendance Register is missing. The plaintiff also made complaint to Public Grievance Cell on 03.02.2012. No payment has been made by the defendants. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking following relief : Suit No :548/2014 Page 4 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
Pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit, till realization of the amount.
9. The defendants have filed written statement taking following defences :
10. The defendants have taken preliminary objections that the plaint is liable to be dismissed as per Section 25 of DESR Act. The plaint is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and had not mentioned true facts and suppressed material facts. The suit is false and frivolous and the allegations made in the plaint are merely oral allegations as the plaintiff has nowhere supported his claim by any document.
11. The plaintiff was engaged in the school as computer faculty for the session 200910 and 201011 by the company M/s ICSIL under contract with Directorate of Education to teach computer science to the students of class 11 th and 12th and the payment to the faculty was made by M/s ICISIL. The contract of the company expired on 31.03.2011 and thereafter, no contract was done by the Directorate of Education with any agency for the session 201112.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 5 of 21Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
12. It is stated that vide circular dated 08.06.2011, the admission to class 11th standard started on 16.06.2011 and continued upto 31.07.2011 which was further extended upto 31.08.2011. No company was engaged to teach computer science for the academic session 201112.
13. It is also stated that the Principal of a Government school has no power to appoint or engage any person in his individual capacity and there was a provision in Parent Teachers Association to take necessary steps for the betterment of the students. Now as per RTE Act, vide order dated 2.2.2012, the collection of PTA fund has been discontinued.
14. It is further stated that a message was received by the school from Zone 27 regarding current status of computer faculty which was replied by Vice Principal by issuing a certificate to EO Zone 27 regarding engagement of plaintiff as computer faculty in the school. This letter was issued on 24.11.2011 by the Vice Principal showing 01.10.2011 as the date of engagement of Pradeep Kumar Gupta as a computer teacher. On 24.11.2011, the Principal of the school was on leave and therefore, the required information regarding computer teacher was furnished to E.O. Zone 27 by Vice Principal of the school.
15. It is further stated that the plaintiff had worked for the period of September 2011 to November 2011 for which he has been paid the amount by three cheques for a sum of Rs. 4500/, Rs. 5000/ and Rs.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 6 of 21Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. 5000/ respectively which was received by the plaintiff and also admitted by him. The plaintiff also filed a complaint before the Public Grievance Commission on 15.02.2012 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Public Grievance Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
16. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been paid his legitimate amount i.e. consolidated honorarium for three months work. Since the plaintiff has not carried out any extra work, hence his demand for payment of extra work is totally baseless and false. The claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ for 8 months w.e.f. 01.04.2011 upto November 2011 is totally baseless as the school was closed due to summer vacations and therefore, the question of engaging computer teacher for that period does not arise at all.
17. It is further stated that in the G.B.S.S.S. Mata Sundri Road, Mr. DK Gupta (real brother of the plaintiff) was a computer teacher on the honorarium of Rs. 2000/ per month and was also working as IT Assistant through M/s Compucom Software Ltd. under contract with Directorate of Education on the honorarium of Rs. 3000/ per month and his total payment is also not more than Rs. 5000/ per month. Rest of the averments made in the plaint are denied in the written statement.
18. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Suit No :548/2014 Page 7 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 11.04.2014 for consideration :
1. Whether the suit is without any cause of action against the defendants? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from this court? If so, the effect thereof? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.
80,000/ as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the aforesaid amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
5. Relief.
19. The parties were then called upon to lead their respective evidence.
20. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he has reiterated the averments of the plaint. PW1 relied upon the following documents : I. Original certificate of appointment issued by Vice Principal as Ex. PW1/1.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 8 of 21Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
II. Copy of complaint to CM office as Ex. PW1/2.
III. Complaint to DDE dated 7.12.2011 as Ex. PW1/3. IV. Complaint to P.G. Cell dated 3.2.2012 along with postal receipts as Ex. PW1/4 (Colly.).
V. Legal notice dated 20.12.2011 along with postal receipts as Ex. PW1/5 (Colly.).
VI. Legal notice dated 3.1.2012 along with postal receipts as Ex. PW1/6 (Colly.).
VII. Photocopies of cheques as Mark A to Mark C. VIII. Email sent to the defendant as Mark D.
21. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, father of the plaintiff was examined as PW2 who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. P2.
22. Both the plaintiff's witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness and plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 14.7.2015. The matter was then listed for defence evidence.
23. The defendants examined the present Principal Dr. Rajeshwari Kapri as DW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. She relied upon the following documents : i. Letter dated 17.1.2011 as Ex. DW1/1.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 9 of 21Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
ii. Copy of circular dated 31.3.2011 as Ex. DW1/2.
iii. Copy of Teacher's Attendance Register for month of March, 2011 to July, 2011 as Ex. DW1/3 iv. Circular dated 09.01.2004 containing guidelines of PTA as Ex. DW1/4.
v. Extracts of meeting of PTA as Ex. DW1/5.
vi. Copy of letter dated 27.8.2011 sent to the plaintiff
as Ex. DW1/6.
vii. Copy of circular dated 2.2.2012 as Ex. DW1/7.
viii. Certificate dated 24.11.2011 as Ex. DW1/8
ix. Copy of Teacher's Attendance Register for
November, 2011 as Ex. DW1/9.
x. Letter dated 20.12.2011 sent to the defendant
along three cheques as Ex. DW1/10
xi. Letter dated 4.1.2012 as Ex. DW1/11.
xii. Copy of letter dated 5.3.2012 addressed to Joint
Secretary, PGC as Ex. DW1/12.
xiii. Copy of order dated 28.3.2012 as Ex. DW1/13.
xiv. Copy of circular dated 3.7.2008 as Ex. DW1/14.
xv. Copy of datesheets as Ex. DW1/15.
xvi. Copy of complaint dt. 19.12.2011 as Ex. DW1/16.
xvii. Copy of attendance register for December 2011 as Suit No :548/2014 Page 10 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
Ex. DW1/17
24. Sh. Ram Singh, ExPrincipal of the school was examined as DW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW2/A.
25. Both the defence witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 22.10.2016 and the parties were then called upon to advance their final arguments in the matter.
26. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have perused the case file. My issuewise findings are as follows :
27. ISSUE NO. 1 : Whether the suit is without any cause of action against the defendants? OPD.
28. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the defendants. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ever appointed by the appointing authority / defendant no.3 as a computer teacher in the school or that he worked as regular teacher from 01.04.2011 till November 2011. The defendants have proved that the plaintiff was appointed by the PTA as computer teacher at monthly salary of Rs. 5000/ per month for the month of September, October and November 2011 and the salary has already been paid to the plaintiff towards the aforesaid months. Therefore, the plaintiff had no Suit No :548/2014 Page 11 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. cause of action to file the present suit.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff was appointed as computer teacher at monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/ by the Principal Ram Singh when the agreement with M/s ICSIL came to an end on 31.03.2011. It is also argued that the plaintiff was not permitted to mark his attendance till 31.08.2011 and only after 01.09.2011, he was permitted to mark his attendance. The plaintiff has not been paid salary as promised by Principal of the School and therefore, the plaintiff had a cause of action to file the suit.
30. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
31. In the plaint, there are no allegations against the defendant no. 2 and 3. The plaintiff has made allegations only against the defendant no. 1 that he had appointed the plaintiff as a computer teacher. There is no allegation that the appointment was done as per the directions of defendant no. 2 and 3. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there was no cause of action against the defendant no. 2 and 3 to file the present suit.
32. Now, coming to the issue of cause of action against the defendant no. 1. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as a Computer Teacher on 01.04.2011 by the Principal of Sarvodaya Bal Suit No :548/2014 Page 12 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. Vidyalaya, Rouse Avenue on a monthly salary of Rs. 10000/ by way of verbal order and a certificate in respect of appointment was also issued by the Vice Principal. It is claimed that he has not been granted salary as assured by the Principal and hence the suit.
33. The plaintiff has examined himself and his father Sh. Tara Chand Gupta to prove that he was appointed as a computer teacher on 01.04.2011 at monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/.
34. The plaintiff has stated that he was verbally asked by the Principal Sh. Ram Singh to teach in the school. Principal Sh. Ram Singh had also assured him that he shall be provided with appointment letter and salary shall be paid to him. In the crossexamination, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant no. 1 school functions under the defendant no.
3. He has also admitted that for the schools functioning under the defendant no. 3, the defendant no.3 i.e. Directorate of Education has formulated rules and norms and procedure for the recruitment of teachers. He has also admitted that the Principal and Vice Principal are also employees under the defendant no. 3 and they are also appointed by the defendant no. 3. He has also admitted that the Head of School / Principal has been empowered to appoint guest teachers through contractor / agency for the subject of computer science and he has not been empowered to recruit regular teachers. He has voluntarily stated that under certain circulars of the defendant no. 3, the Head of School / Principal have been Suit No :548/2014 Page 13 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. empowered to recruit the teachers.
35. The plaintiff has also stated that he had several times requested the defendant no. 1 to mark his attendance in the attendance register but the defendant no. 1 /Principal avoided the request on one pretext or another. After several requests, the Principal allowed him to mark his attendance from 01.09.2011 as full time teacher from 8 am to 2 pm while he started working since 01.04.2011.
36. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of the plaintiff that he had not received any appointment letter from the defendant no.1 or the defendant no.3 regarding his appointment as computer teacher in the school. It is also proved from the testimony of the plaintiff that he had marked his attendance in the register only from 01.09.2011 onwards. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not lodged any complaint with the DDE or any other concerned officials in respect of such act of the Principal of the school if the Principal did not permit him to mark attendance for such a long time i.e. 01.04.2011 to 31.08.2011. It is not a case where the plaintiff has never worked in the government school. He had been working as teacher in the same school on contract under M/s ICSIL till 31.03.2011. The plaintiff is well aware of the hierarchy in the education department and rules and procedure of appointment of teacher in government school. The plaintiff has not given any explanation as to why he continued to work as teacher without any appointment letter and without marking any Suit No :548/2014 Page 14 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. attendance till 31.08.2011 and also without receiving any salary for such a long period. There is nothing produced by the plaintiff to prove that he had been appointed as computer teacher by the Principal of the School w.e.f. 01.04.2011 as claimed in the suit.
37. The plaintiff has stated that under certain circular, the Principal of the School was authorized to appoint regular teachers. However, the plaintiff has not filed any circular vide which the Principal was empowered to appoint regular teachers in the school. Admittedly, the Principal is governed by the rules and regulations of defendant no. 3 namely Directorate of Education and is an employee of the defendant no. 3 Directorate of Education. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the Principal was authorized by any circular to appoint regular teacher in the school.
38. The defendants have claimed that the plaintiff was appointed by PTA as computer teacher w.e.f. 01.09.2011 after resolution in this regard was passed in PTA meeting held on 11.07.2011. It is also claimed that PTA has approved appointment of plaintiff at monthly salary of Rs. 5000/ which was payable from the PTA fund and the salary has been paid to the plaintiff by way of cheques.
39. The defendants have examined the present Principal Smt. Rajeshwari Kapri and the then Principal Ram Singh in defence.
Suit No :548/2014 Page 15 of 21Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.
40. DW1 Dr. Rajeshwari Kapri is the present Principal of the school. She has stated that as per the school record, there was no computer faculty after 31.03.2011 because as per the circular dated 31.03.2011, Ex. DW1/2, all the faculties were relieved.
41. The testimony of DW1 shows that she has no knowledge of the affairs of the school in the year 201112.
42. The ExPrincipal Ram Singh was examined as DW2. DW2 has stated that the Principal of the school has no power to appoint teachers in his individual capacity. Pradeep Gupta was engaged as a computer faculty after the proposal was passed in the PTA on 11.07.2011. He has also stated that the plaintiff was engaged as computer faculty for classes 11th & 12th standard as decided by the Working Committee of the PTA w.e.f. 01.09.2011 only. DW2 has also stated that the PTA has only power to give Rs. 5000/ per month to the teacher and in this case also, it was decided that maximum Rs. 5000/ would be given to Pradeep Gupta.
43. In the crossexamination, DW2 Ram Singh has categorically stated that the plaintiff has not communicated / corresponded with him or contacted him after 31.03.2011. No suggestion has been given to DW2 that the plaintiff had asked to mark his attendance during the period 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2011, but DW2 did not permit to do so. Nothing has come in the crossexamination from DW2 Ram Singh from which it can Suit No :548/2014 Page 16 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. be inferred that he had appointed plaintiff as computer faculty in the school w.e.f 01.04.2011. DW2 has also stated that according to Pratachar Niyam, there was a provision of Rs. 100/ for per period to be paid to the teacher appointed by the PTA and the same was accordingly payable to the plaintiff.
44. The certificate issued by the Vice Principal to the plaintiff, Ex. PW1/1 and also Ex.DW1/8 would show that the plaintiff was appointed as computer science faculty only from 01.10.2011. The certificate reads as under : It is certified that Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta is working as Senior faculty of computer science for classes XI and XII as decided by the Working Committee of the P.T.A. w.e.f. 01/10/2011. He has also taught in this school in the same capacity during the last two sessions 20092010 and 20102011.
45. It is written in the certificate that that the plaintiff had worked as Computer Science Faculty during 2009 to 2011. There is no mention in the certificate that he had also worked after academic session ending on 31.03.2011.
46. The minutes of meeting of the PTA held on 11.07.2011 Ex. DW1/5 shows that it was agreed in the meeting that one computer faculty Suit No :548/2014 Page 17 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. shall be appointed for computer education. The letter dated 27.08.2011 Ex. DW1/6 was addressed to plaintiff Pradeep Kumar Gupta thereby informing him that he has been selected by the PTA as computer faculty at a monthly salary of Rs. 5000/ per month. The letter dated 27.08.2011 Ex. DW1/6 and minutes of meeting of PTA dated 11.07.2011, Ex. DW1/5 prove that the proposal was passed by PTA on 11.07.2011 to appoint computer faculty at monthly salary of Rs. 5000/ only and the plaintiff was appointed as a computer teacher at the said salary.
47. In view of discussion hereinabove, this Court holds that the defendants have proved, on the balance of probability, that the plaintiff was appointed by PTA as computer science teacher for the month of September to November 2011 and the salary payable to the plaintiff was Rs. 5000/ per month. It is admitted by the plaintiff that he had received letter dated 20.12.2011 Ex. DW1/10 after issuance of legal notice. It is admitted case of parties that the plaintiff has received salary at rate of Rs. 5000/ per month by way of cheques for the month of September to November 2011 along with letter Ex. DW1/10. The material on record shows that the defendants have paid the due amount payable to the plaintiff towards salary for the month of September to November 2011.
48. In the case, no appointment letter is shown to be issued by the defendant no. 1 or the defendant no. 2 and 3 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that he was appointed by a verbal order. In a government Suit No :548/2014 Page 18 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. organization, there cannot be oral appointment and procedure of appointment is to be followed. Earlier also, the plaintiff had worked in the same school and his appointment was done through contractor. There is no explanation as to why the plaintiff believed that the Principal could have appointed him by oral directions. There is also no explanation as to why he did not take any action when his attendance were not marked from the date of his alleged appointment. He even did not take any action when the salary for the first month was not paid. All these circumstances create doubt on the story of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove, on the balance of probability, that he had worked in the school for the period of 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2011 or that his entitled to salary for the said period.
49. In view of discussion hereinabove, this Court holds that the defendants has proved that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the present suit for recovery of salary after receipt of cheques towards salary for the month of September to November 2011. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
50. Issue no : 2 :Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from this court? If so, the effect thereof? OPD.
51. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the defendants. Neither DW1 nor DW2 has stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff has Suit No :548/2014 Page 19 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. concealed any material fact from the Court. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff has concealed any material fact from this Court. Therefore, this Court holds that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has concealed any material fact from this Court. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
52. Issue no. 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 80,000/ as prayed for? OPP.
53. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. In view of findings of this Court on issue no. 1, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of any amount. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
54. Issue no. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the aforesaid amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
55. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff. In view of findings of this Court on issue no. 1 and 3, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
56. Relief.
57. In view of findings of this Court on the aforesaid issues, this Suit No :548/2014 Page 20 of 21 Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors. Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (NEHA)
on 31st January, 2017 Civil Judge09, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No :548/2014 Page 21 of 21
Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs. The Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Rouse Avenue & Ors.