Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar v. Sukh Raj Singh

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No.12750- C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the time for making up the deficiency in the court fee is extended by a fortnight. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 12752 C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 12751 C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by Regular Second Appeal No.4227 of 2010 -2- an affidavit, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No. 12753 C of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No. 4227 of 2010 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against whom the suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff for the recovery of `. 1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as damages. The suit was dismissed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2004 and the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, was accepted by Additional District Judge ( Ad hoc), Gurdaspur, and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, for ` 35,150/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of that amount. The plaintiff came up with the plea that after passing his 10+2 examination, he applied to the defendant-University for appearing in the examination of B.A. Ist year examination was to be held in March 1997, and he deposited examination fee of ` 2100/-, vide receipt dated 20.12.1996 and submitted his Admission Form along with the requisite testimonials. He received a letter from the defendant dated 22.1.1997, requiring him to deposit additional amount of ` 50/-, in connection with his admission form and the same was paid on 28.1.1997. In spite of the fact that he fulfilled all the conditions, the defendant did not issue the proposed Roll Number 10829, and as such committed gross negligence, inefficiency, mis- Regular Second Appeal No.4227 of 2010 -3- administration and carelessness, as a result of which he lost his one educational year. He had been visiting the office of the defendant for the issuance of Roll Number, but the same was refused without any cause. On account of those acts of the defendant, he suffered a loss of ` 1,00,000/-. He had engaged a servant at the monthly salary of ` 2500/- and also paid ` 1000/- per month as tuition fee. He suffered a loss of ` 50,000/- on account of mental loss, pain and sufferings. The suit was contested by the defendant. It admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff had applied for appearing as a private candidate in B.A.Part-I examination and had submitted his Admission form and had deposited ` 50/- as additional fee. The other contentions of the plaintiff were denied and it has been pleaded that the form was put up before the Accounts Branch for clearance of the fee and Accounts Branch intimated the plaintiff that the fee was less by ` 50/- and that the plaintiff did not turn up to deposit that less fee in spite of issuance of letter dated

6.2.1997. Even a press note was also given to that effect, which was duly published in a number of newspapers. Despite of that press note, the plaintiff did not approach it. His suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. In replication to the written statement, the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties and hearing counsel on their behalf, the findings were recorded against the plaintiff and his suit was dismissed. As already said above, in the first appeal, judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Regular Second Appeal No.4227 of 2010 -4- I have heard learned counsel for the defendant. It has been submitted by counsel for the defendant that it was the duty of the plaintiff to inform the Examination Branch that he had deposited ` 50/-, which was found to be less fee, with the Accounts Branch and it was on account of negligence of the plaintiff to inform that branch that the Roll Number was not issued. According to him, no negligence was attributable to the defendant and wrong finding has been recorded to that effect by the First Appellate Court, which give rise to substantial question of law in the present appeal. Counsel for the defendant was asked to point out the relevant rule contained in the calendar of the defendant-University that it was the duty of the plaintiff to intimate the Examination Branch about the deposit of the fee, which was found to be less, with the Accounts Branch. He has failed to show any such rule. Defendant is an autonomous body and all its branches were required to work in cooperation with each other. It was the duty of the Accounts Branch to inform the Examination Branch about the deposit of the examination fee etc. by the plaintiff and it was not for the plaintiff to inform that branch himself. Correct finding was recorded by the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff suffered loss on account of the negligence on part of the defendant. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the said finding is based on misreading of the evidence or is perverse. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. December 16, 2010 PARAMJIT (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE