High Court Karnataka High Court

The Management Of The Little … vs Smt Usha Bai D/O Sri K S Nanjunda Rao on 17 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Management Of The Little … vs Smt Usha Bai D/O Sri K S Nanjunda Rao on 17 July, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
This Civil Revision Petition is flied unde§i'_:éS'eéf.i0:i4-1_. 15

of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated i5V...1?j2Q2OO5V' 
passed in R.A.No. 38/ 2001 by 1:11;: »PI'in€:ipa}--.0'_Ci'¢i.1gluzige . 1 
(Senior Division), Ramanagaram, dismissing tR1eV_app¢a1'f11'ed ~.

against the Judgment and decree 'dat::'§6...'017IO8;2G0i.0"paSsed

in 0.3.340. 45/ 1991 by the Civil Judge"(J11nior1;Divisi0I1)"afid
Additional ..JMi?«'C., Ramanagalfam, decrceixig  ..S!-;1it for'

damages and compensation.

This petition comiiilg 00:: this day the Court,
made the following: " T '   ._ 

This  599501100 is 004 by me Defendant
czhaliengng--0  011d-...d§ecree dated 17.03.2001
passed  thfa  Division) and Additional

JMFC., Raxi::.0at:aga;~ax0,, %i:i10'0.s.No. 45/1991, decreeing the

" ':-auiit  ;';ii1d--..comp€nsati0n, which is afiirmed by the

 :,{S:§'11j0r Division), Ramanagaram in RA. No.

  38/2(_)_'{)é1 ¢iat¢0AJ:015.12.2005. By the said Judmxents, the

.   befijav decreeé the suit of the p1ajI1tifi' and directed the

  0'$3fefi;§if¢;nt--petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.9,500/--

.   damages and 123.500/--- as compensation to the

  -0 ggzaintsfi".

g, £U.mu$:i1...



2. The Plaintiff-respondent hereiI__1-- J 

petitienerr-defendant’s institution for. that» 1

she was not permitted to take her 2

held on 09.04.1990 on the gx’o1_§i1.(i that .p-ézid are

tuition fee. ‘$0 substanfiate _ {it Nanjzmda .

Rae, the father of the V M. Neelaiah, the
Assistant Educational They
in their evide1’1ee.__ ‘stated_ e:ea£tt.n¢ Head Mistress of the

defen<iaI1t– 'she Secretary of the school

not to ai3,ev&' to take examination of 3"
standard asvttshe pay the tuition fee.

' _ of the defendant-institution, Sri. I.V.

jsecretaxy of the school, Sri. Susheela, the

elass teaetier and Sri. Ismail Shariff the father of one of the

t were examined as I).Ws. 1 to 3 respectively. They

' evidence have stated that the mother of the plaintiff'

[took her from the eiass and as such she did not take

examination, it is not that the institution had prevented

K'LI_I11&I'i. Ushabaé from taking her examination.

/qfiaz.-t2xu,:LLm..,,_

Division), Ramanagaram in RA. No. 38
15.12.2005 are set aside. However,
peculiar facts and CiI’C12HiS1ZaI1C€S gfise;
to the defi-:1.1dants«-school ma11z?§ge1I’Vi€3i1 i’Vf;I1at
occurs in future, the thé
concerned parents of in Writing,

so as to enable jzhem sfiirmxgements for

Bayment of