OXFORD SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. M.B. RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby Oxford Senior Secondary School, E-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi through its Manager Captain Srikant Sharma (petitioner) has sought the quashing of civil suit No. PA 220F/1999 titled as M.B. Rana versus Oxford Senior Secondary School filed in forma pauperis and pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana, copy of which is Annexure P2, against this school (petitioner) for the recovery of Rs. 3600/- on the allegations that he is Editor/Publisher of newspaper having its Central Office at HE-93, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana and registered Head Office at Yamunanagar and the defendant school got published advertisement with the plaintiff and he laid claim for the advertisement charges to the tune of Rs. 3600/-. It was alleged that the defendant school had promised to pay the amount of the dues of the advertisement bill No. PH/O-50/II dated 29.10.1995 of the plaintiff but later on refused to make payment because of the instigation of his opponents. Defendant school is seeking the quashing of the suit on the ground that this school is absolutely stranger not known to the respondent having no links whatsoever with him either directly or indirectly. Defendant school never approached Mr. M.B. Rana to publish any advertisement and in fact had no reason at all to have published any advertisement in Ludhiana as defendant school is situated at Delhi, a day boarding without any hostel facility. It is also alleged in this petition that on inquiry from Ludhiana, it was learnt that he is in the habit of filing suits for petty amounts against people of all over India with a view to harass, torture and blackmail them to make illegal gains for himself and he is misusing the licence given to him by the Government of India and the Press Council of India. It is further alleged that people are compelled to go in for compromise with him as attending litigation at Ludhiana for such petty amounts is inconvenient to them and is time and money consuming. It is further alleged that process should not have been issued to the school in the suit because he had not filed any document in support of his claim like copy of the order of release of a matter to be advertised/published except copy of bill No. PH/O/50/II dated 29.10.95 Annexure P1. It is further alleged in the plaint that the alleged claim was barred by time. Alleged claim became accrued to him on 29.10.95 while the suit was filed on 6.1.99 i.e. after three years period.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not pleaded any acknowledgement of liability in between by the school so that there was fresh cause of limitation and the suit was patently barred by time. He further submits that Court should have examined the plaint carefully to see whether the claim was or was not within time. He further submits that Court should have looked into the foundation of the claim which could have been the placing of some order by the school to him for carrying out advertisement in his paper "Lala Samachar". He submits that Court should have insisted upon the production of the order placing advertisement with him by the school to be published in that paper in view of Order 7 Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure particularly when the placing of the order for publishing the advertisement by the school in his paper was the very foundation of his claim.