Madras High Court
St. Aleysius Angle Indian Higher ... vs Association For Protection Of ... on 27 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)2MLJ404
ORDER Srinivasan, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A. No. 8009 of 1990 directing the refund of school fees collected by the petitioner herein from the students of the Institution on the basis of enhancement of which the parents' of the students were given notice by circular dated 19.12.1989. Several students numbering about 1200, according to petitioner's counsel, paid enhanced fee and only about 200 students did not pay the enhanced fee. The suit, out of which this revision arises, has been filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the demand for enhancement of tuition fees as per circular dt. 19.12.1989 issued by the defendant to the parents of the students is illegal and invalid and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demanding enhanced tuition fees than the one prevailing as on 1.6.90. By order dated 16.3.1990 in I.A.No. 2454 of 1990, the 4th Assistant Judge granted an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from collecting the enhanced fee, for the period 1.6.89 to 31.12.1989. That order was the subject matter of appeal in C.W.A. No. 40 of 1990 on the file of the 4th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. That appeal was dismissed by the said Judge and Civil Revision Petition No. 2075 of 1990 has been filed in this Court against the said order. Subsequent to the order passed in I.A. No. 2454 of 1990, the respondent filed I.A. No. 8009 of 1990 for a direction to the petitioner to refund the excess amount collected by the petitioner from the students of the Institution for the period 1.6.89 to 31.12.1989. The 4th Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Madras has granted the prayer in the view that the order of injunction made in I.A. No. 2454 of 1990 on 16.3.1990 enabled the respondent to get an order of refund as prayed for by the respondent.
2. The learned Judge has overlooked the fact that the prayer in the suit is for a declaration and permanent injunction and there is no prayer for a consequential decree for refund of the amount collected in excess. Hence the prayer for refund in the interlocutory application travels beyond the scope of the suit. Learned trial Judge has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing such a refund during the pendency of the suit when there is no prayer in the plaint itself.
3. Consequently the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court in I.A. No. 8009 of 1990 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.