Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nalin Sood And Another vs Apeejay School Faridabad on 16 February, 2018
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CR-1071-2018 1
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-1071-2018
Date of decision : 16.02.2018
Nalin Sood and another
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Apeejay School Faridabad
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure P-1), whereby an application on behalf of the petitioners-defendants for summoning the witnesses, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, during the course of the arguments, confines his prayer for summoning of the witnesses mentioned at Sr. Nos.1 & 2 and gives up witnesses at Sr. Nos.3 to
5. He submitted that the respondent-School has enhanced the fee structure. In a suit filed for recovery of an amount of `89,450/-, petitioners-defendants wanted to summon the following witnesses:-
''1. Concerned Accountant from Appejay School, Sector 15, Faridabad, along with record of Audited Balance Sheet for the period for financial year 2006 to 2009, profit and loss account for the period for financial year 2006 to 2009, approved fee structure for the period for financial year 2006-2009, Break up of fee for the period for financial year 2006 to 2009.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2018 15:00:25 ::: CR-1071-2018 2
2. Concerned Clerk from the office of District Education Officer, Sector 16, Faridabad, along with complaints against the Apeejay School, Sector 15, Faridabad and record of Inquiry conducted in respect of fees hike of the said school.
3. Concerned Clerk of HUDA, Sector 12, Faridabad, along with record of Complete allotment of plot file of Appejay School, Sector 15, Faridabad.
4. Concerned Clerk/Record Keeper from the office of Commissioner Gurugram, along with status report/orders passed in compliance of directions issued in CWP Nos.20545, CWP No.3834 of 2010 and CWP No.5587 of 2010 on the point of fees hike.
5. Concerned Clerk, Record Keeper from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, along with status report/orders passed in compliance of directions issued in CWP No.20545, CWP No.3834 of 2010 and CWP No.5587 of 2010 on the point of fees hike.
The aforementioned application was objected to by the plaintiff/respondent by filing an objection and the application has erroneously been dismissed vide impugned order, under challenge.
He further submits that the findings of the trial Court that the defendants cannot summon the witnesses of the plaintiff, who would depose against plaintiff, are erroneous and illegal. To prove the factum of illegal fee hike, the record of school would be essential and necessary, as to under what circumstances, fee structure was enhanced.
However, he does not dispute the findings of the trial Court with regard to the summoning of witnesses mentioned at Serial Nos.3 to 5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and appraised the paper book. In my view, the application of the petitioners-defendants for summoning witnesses mentioned at Sr. Nos.1 & 2 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2018 15:00:26 ::: CR-1071-2018 3 ought to have been considered pragmatically and it is, by way of witnesses, sought to bring on record, the petitioners-defendants would be able to prove the pleaded case. The finding of the trial Court that the defendants cannot be permitted to summon the witnesses of the respondent-school, who would depose against the plaintiff is also erroneous, fallacious, much less, illegal. The case is built during the evidence stage and production of record, if required for adjudication, cannot be denied. The party cannot be prevented to summon the witnesses as per the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, under challenge is set aside and the application for summoning the witnesses mentioned at Sr. No.1 & 2 only is allowed.
The revision petition is allowed dispensing with notice to the respondent in order to save time of the Court and defray the expenses of litigation.
( AMIT RAWAL)
16.02.2018 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2018 15:00:26 :::