R.L. Anand, J.@mdashThis is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who reversed the order dated 4.1.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faridabad, who allowed the application filed by !he plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and respondent No. 1 was restrained from recovering Rs. 6,06,653/- from the plaintiff-petitioner and also for the 1982 to 1989 and 1992 to 1996 on account of contribution of the provident fund with the observations that the respondent-defendant can recover the said amount from the respondent-defendant No. 2 i.e. the District Education Officer, Faridabad, as per provisions of law.
2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-
Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that defendant No. 1 i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner be restrained from recovering a sum of Rs. 6,06,653/-demanded by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff-petitioner towards the contribution of the provident fund and the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner was that this institution is governed by the provisions of the Haryana Aided Schools (Secu-rity of Services) Act, 1971. It was also the case of the plaintiff-petitioner before the trial court that this institution has already paid the amount to the State Government and that the Provident Fund Commissioner can realise the amount from the stale Government.
3. On the contrary, the stand of defendant No. 1 is that if the plaintiff-petitioner has deposited the amount in a wrong department or under a wrong head, it is the headache of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to recover the amount. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the amount and the order of the appellate Court is correct.
4. The learned trial court allowed the application for the reasons given in paras 8 and 9 of the order dated 4.1.1999.
However, that order was reversed by the first appellate Court merely for the reasons given in paras 11 and 12 of the impugned order dated 6.8.1999. -
"11. I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and find no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting respondent. I have carefully perused the copy of the order placed on record passed in CWP 5920 of 1995 relied upon by both the sides. A perusal of the same reveals that it has been held in it by Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana that under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, 1952, right to recover the provident fund is with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Director of Secondary/School Education Haryana has no right to get this money deposited with it and keep it in a bank. I am of the considered view that the ratio of this authority is fully applicable to !he fads and circumstances of this case.
12. Moreover, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant from the material on record. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant. Moreover, an irreparable loss would certainly cause to the appellant if I do not set aside (he impugned order dated 4.1.1999. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, I set aside the impugned order dated 4.1.1999 and allow the appeal in hand."
5. I have heard Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Bindal, Advocate, for respondents and with their assistance, 1 have gone through the record of the case,
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that [he impugned order is subject to appeal. No civil suit is legally maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Committee, Appeejay Saraswati College for Girls, Charkhi Dadri v. State of Haryana and others 1996 A IJ 661. On the contrary, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is without any jurisdiction and, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner has the right to challenge the demand insisted by defendant No. 1 in the civil Court. Be that as it may, this point is to be decided by the trial Court. At this juncture, whether the plaintiff-petitioner has any prima facie case in his favour or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that the plaintiff-petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 6,06,653/- with defendant No. 2 and this fact has also been admitted by defendant No. 2. In these circumstances, it will be a great hardship lo the petitioner, if it is directed to deposit the amount again with defendant No. 1. This is a common case of the parties that the plaintiff-petitioner is a Government aided institution by Haryana Government. It is a matter of moot point whether the petitioner is still liable to pay the amount to defendant No. 1. This point can be adjudicated only if the evidence is led in this regard.
7. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, impugned order is set aside and the order of the trial court is recalled with the direction to the trial court to conclude the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner within 4 months and the suit itself should be disposed of within 8 months from today. Copy of the order be given dasti.
8. Petition allowed.
