Raghubir Saran and Others Vs. Krishna Kumar

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as.....order1. the list has been revised. nobody appears for the parties.2. in original suit no. 36 of 1979, chudhari krishna kumar v. raghubir saran, pending in the court of judge, small causes, moradabad, the applicants, who figure as defendants, raised a plea to the effect that the suit was wrongly valued. they further asserted that the value given in schedule ka had been wrongly given. and that the real price given by plaintiff was much less, it was also the plea of the applicants that the value of the property shown by the plaintiff was more than the marked value. in support of the pleadings the applicants did not give any detail. by means of the order dated 25th august, 1982, impugned in the instant revision, the applicants have been called upon to give details.3. under r.5 of o.vi of the code of civil procedure, 1908 court can always, in all cases, order furnishing of a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading.4. obviously, the pleadings, noticed earlier, lack precision. the court below was, therefore, perfectly justified in requiring the applicants to give further details, and in doing so it did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.5. the revision has no force and is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. the interim order stands discharged.6. petition dismissed.