G. Siva Prasada Reddy Vs. M. Thippa Reddy and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private 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 of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 5. in the aforementioned circumstances, all the civil revision petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed.orderr. ramanujam, j.1. as common question of law and fact arises for consideration in these revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. revision petitioner therein is the defendant in o.s. nos. 103, 106; 104, 107 and 105 of 1999 respectively on the file of the junior civil judge, uravakonda. in those suits, the petitioner-defendant herein, filed i.a. nos. 279, 282, 280, 282 and 281 of 2000 respectively, under order 7 rules 10 and 11 of the civil procedure code seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that the reliefs sought for therein are barred by limitation. those applications were dismissed by the learned junior civil judge by separate orders. against those orders, the present revision petitions are filed.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner, sri o. manohar reddy, strenuously, contended that the learned junior civil judge has erred in dismissing the applications, in his submission,, the court, below ought to have framed a preliminary) issue regarding limitation and should have rejected the plaints after consideration of the same.4. i do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner; the question of limitation is always considered as a mixed question of fact and law. it is also settled now that the plaint has to be returned under order 7 rule 10 of the civil procedure code only in cases where the court has no jurisdiction, such is hot the case here. likewise, a plaint can be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code, inter alia, when there is a statutory bar to the suit. it is not the case of the petitioner-defendant that the suits are barred by any statute. the plea of limitation is never considered as a statutory bar. it may be noted that even for disposing the suit on a preliminary issue under order 14 rule 2 of the civil procedure code, that issue must relate to the either jurisdiction of the court or a bar created by any law for the time being in force. in the present cases, already three witnesses were examined oft behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and the plaintiff dosed his evidence on his side long back. as already noted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, in my considered view, the learned junior civil judge is right in not taking the issue regarding limitation as a preliminary issue under order 14 rule 2 of the civil procedure code. further, the learned junior civil judge has rightly observed that the issue regarding limitation, which was already framed, will be decided along with other issues after adducing the evidence on the side of the petitioner-defendant.5. in the aforementioned circumstances, all the civil revision petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

R. Ramanujam, J.

1. As common question of law and fact arises for consideration in these revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Revision petitioner therein is the defendant in O.S. Nos. 103, 106; 104, 107 and 105 of 1999 respectively on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. In those suits, the petitioner-defendant herein, filed I.A. Nos. 279, 282, 280, 282 and 281 of 2000 respectively, under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that the reliefs sought for therein are barred by limitation. Those applications were dismissed by the learned junior Civil Judge by separate orders. Against those orders, the present revision petitions are filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, strenuously, contended that the learned Junior Civil Judge has erred in dismissing the applications, in his submission,, the Court, below ought to have framed a preliminary) issue regarding limitation and should have rejected the plaints after consideration of the same.

4. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner; The question of limitation is always considered as a mixed question of fact and law. It is also settled now that the plaint has to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code only in cases where the Court has no jurisdiction, Such is hot the case here. Likewise, a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, when there is a statutory bar to the suit. It is not the case of the petitioner-defendant that the suits are barred by any statute. The plea of limitation is never considered as a statutory bar. It may be noted that even for disposing the suit on a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, that issue must relate to the either jurisdiction of the Court or a bar created by any law for the time being in force. In the present cases, already three witnesses were examined oft behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and the plaintiff dosed his evidence on his side long back. As already noted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, in my considered view, the learned Junior Civil Judge is right in not taking the issue regarding limitation as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Further, the learned Junior Civil Judge has rightly observed that the issue regarding limitation, which was already framed, will be decided along with other issues after adducing the evidence on the side of the petitioner-defendant.

5. In the aforementioned circumstances, all the Civil Revision Petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. No Costs.