RFA 471/2022 Page 1 of 17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 14

th

January, 2026

Pronounced on: 09

th

April, 2026

+ RFA 471/2022

LALA SHER SINGH MEMORIAL JEEVAN

VIGYAN TRUST SOCIETY

through its Authorised Signatory,

Sh. Rajiv Narang,

Address: Plot No.18, Sector-22,

Dwarka, New Delhi. .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sanjay Madan, Advocate.

versus

GAYATRI GUPTA

W/o SH. Ashok Kumar Gupta,

R/o D-4/3, Model Town-III, Delhi. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amar Nath Gupta and

Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed on

behalf of the Appellant i.e. Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan

Trust Society against Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2022 passed by

learned ADJ-02, Delhi, i whereby Leave to Defend Application filed by

Defendant No.3 / Appellant was dismissed and the Suit of the Plaintiff /

Respondent for recovery of Rs.17,81,531/- along with interest @ 18% per

annum, has been decreed.

RFA 471/2022 Page 2 of 17

2. Plaintiff / Respondent had filed Suit bearing No. CS DJ ADJ No.

220/2020 under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.17,81,531/- along

with pendente lite and future interest.

3. Brief facts as narrated therein were that Defendant No.1 / Presidium

Dwarka Sector-22 School was headed by its Chairperson, Mrs. Sudha

Gupta. Defendant No.2 / Ms. Neerja Chawla, was Regional Head Business

Development and Authorised Signatory of Defendant No.1/School, who was

operating from the premises of Mother‟s Pride School, located at 11/77,

West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Defendant No.3 / Presidium Educational &

Charitable Trust was controlling the operations of Defendant No.1/School.

Defendant No.4 / Presidium Educational Institution Private Limited, was

private limited Company, had been controlling the overall operations of

other Defendants. Its Director Mrs. Raj Rani Gupta, was the mother-in-law

of Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Chairperson of Defendant No.1 / School.

4. It was further asserted that Defendant Nos.1 and 4 were known to the

husband of the Plaintiff, for several years. In the month of May, 2017,

Defendant Nos.1 and 4 sought a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for the

infrastructural development of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka and

assured that they would pay an interest @ 13% per annum payable monthly.

They also assured that the amount would be returned within a year.

5. Believing the assurance of the Defendants and considering the

amicable relationship, Plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- through cheque

dated 02.05.2017, which was encashed on 06.05.2017. Defendant No.2 /

Neerja Chawla, on the instructions of Presidium School and Presidium

Educational Institution Private Limited and being the Authorized Signatory

RFA 471/2022 Page 3 of 17

of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, issued a Demand Promissory Note

and Receipt of consideration of Promissory Note, both dated 02.05.2017,

under her signatures and the Seal of the School. The principal amount was

returned by Defendant No.3 vide three cheques dated 07.04.2018 and

07.05.2018 towards principal and interest, in the sum of Rs.14,625/- each.

All the three cheques, on presentations, were dishonoured for the reasons

“drawer’s signatures not as per mandate” or “drawer’s signatures differ”.

6. The Plaintiff approached the Defendants for return of the loan

amount, who assured that they would be able to arrange the funds in a few

month / weeks. The Plaintiff again made several requests and made

personal visits, despite which loan amount was not deposited. Therefore,

Plaintiff filed Suit for recovery of a principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and

the interest amount, totalling to Rs.17,81,531/-.

7. Leave to Defend Application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC was

filed on behalf of Defendant No.3 / Presidium Educational & Charitable

Trust, wherein it was asserted that Plaintiff has impleaded Defendant No.3

as “Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust; Lala Sher Singh Memorial

Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.” However, Presidium Educational &

Charitable Trust is a trust, registered under the Trust Act, wherein the Lala

Sher Singh Charitable Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society is a Society registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Both are separate legal entities

and could not have been clubbed together as one entity. There is no legal

entity in the name, arrayed as Defendant No.3.

8. The Plaintiff herself is not clear whether Presidium Educational &

Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust

RFA 471/2022 Page 4 of 17

Society, is one or separate. The Suit is therefore, bad for misjoinder of

parties.

9. It is further asserted that as per the Plaint and the Memo of Parties,

alleged amount was paid to Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, at the

instance of Defendant No.4 / the Presidium Educational Institution Private

Limited and the amount was used by the Presidium Group. Even if,

Defendant No.4 gave a TDS Certificate for the interest for Financial Years

2016-2017 and 2017-2018, it would not make the Suit maintainable against

answering Defendant No.3.

10. As per the case of the Plaintiff herself, Defendant No.1 is a Public

School, controlled and operated by Defendant No.3, which is a Charitable

Trust. The Applicant is a Registered Society, under the Societies Act, but is

not controlling or operating the school. This fact is evident from the

impleadment of Defendant No.3 through its Chairman / Trustee Sh. G. S.

Matharoo. The Suit is not maintainable against the answering Defendant.

11. Further, the Plaintiff in her Plaint, had stated that Defendant No.4 is a

Company, which is controlling the overall operations of the Defendant;

thereby Applicant Society is not responsible for the aforesaid acts.

12. Defendant No.2/ Mrs. Neerja Chawla was not an employee of the

Applicant Society and has been operating from the premises of Mother‟s

Pride, West Punjabi Bagh. She is not an Authorised Representative of the

Applicant

13. Likewise, as per the Plaintiff, Defendant No.4, owned and run various

schools under the brand name of Presidium, having many schools in

Dwarka. The alleged Promissory Note and Receipt purported to have been

RFA 471/2022 Page 5 of 17

executed by Defendant No. 2, does not prove that the Receipt was issued on

behalf of Presidium School, Dwarka, or that she was authorised to issue the

Receipt. There was no contract for payment of interest; the Plaintiff has

claimed additional amount which is beyond the scope of Order XXXVII and

the Suit is not maintainable.

14. The returns of the cheques and subsequent Demand Notice, do not

disclose any cause of action to file the present Suit under Order XXXVII

C.P.C. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled for Leave to Defend the Suit.

15. It is further asserted that there is no cause of action disclosed in the

Plaint and the Suit is not maintainable. It is claimed that substantial defences

have been raised and answering Defendant No.3 is entitled to Leave to

Defend the present Suit.

16. The Plaintiff, in her Reply to the Leave to Defend Application, has

explained that the refund cheque dated 30.04.2018 for Rs.15,00,000/- and

two cheques towards interest, were duly issued by the Defendant / Presidium

School, Sector 22, Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan

Vigyan Trust Society). Therefore, the said Trust was necessary party to the

Suit and it is denied that the Suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties.

17. It is further submitted that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan

Trust Society, had deducted TDS on interest payments for Financial Year

2017-18; which is evident from the Plaintiff‟s Income-Tax Form 26AS

issued to her for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, even though Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society deducted TDS on the interest

cheques for Rs.14,625/- each, but the TDS amounts have not been deposited

RFA 471/2022 Page 6 of 17

with the Income-Tax Authorities, which is evident from the Income-Tax

Form 26AS of the Plaintiff, for the A.Y. 2019-20.

18. It is vehemently denied that the Suit is not maintainable against Lala

Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.

19. Furthermore, it is denied that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan

Vigyan Trust Society is not controlling or operating Presidium School,

Dwarka. The School Affiliation Certificate issued by the CBSE clearly

stated that the school is managed by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan

Vigyan Trust Society. Therefore, the Suit is maintainable against Lala Sher

Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, under the Chairmanship of

Mr. G. S. Matharoo, which is liable to refund the loan amount,

20. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant has concealed its

relationships with former Defendant No.4 / Presidium Educational

Institution Private Ltd. The Demand Promissory Note dated 02.05.2017 was

issued by Mrs. Neerja Chawla (though wrongly stated as Mrs. Neerja

Bhatia), authorized signatory of the Presidium School.

21. Likewise, Receipt of consideration of Promissory Note was issued on

behalf of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, managed and run by the

Defendant Society. It was denied that there was no contract for payment of

interest or that the Suit under Order XXXVII, was not maintainable.

22. It is therefore, submitted that there was no ground for grant of Leave

to Defend, which was liable to be dismissed and the Suit of the Plaintiff be

Decreed.

23. Learned District Judge, during the trial, in the Order dated

20.08.2020, observed that averments in the Plaint were made against Mrs.

RFA 471/2022 Page 7 of 17

Neerja Chawla, employee of the Society, who was signatory of the

Promissory Note and Receipt, issued to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant

No.2 / School.

24. The Service Report on the Summons dated 08.10.2019 was that Mrs.

Neerja Chawla, the employee, had already left the employment of the

school. Defendant No.4 / Presidium School and Presidium Educational

Institution Private Limited had no locus in the present dispute between the

Society and the Plaintiff, which is money claim. It was also observed that

Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Chairperson of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka,

had also been impleaded as Defendant No.1.

25. It was observed that the arraying of Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 by the

Plaintiff as parties to the Suit seemed as a desperate attempt on the part of

the Plaintiff to exert pressure and cause grave hardship to the Defendants,

when in fact the claim for money was only against the Society of Defendant

No.3. There was no logic understandable in impleading the Society through

its President Mr. G. S. Matharoo, to whom the service of Summons under

Order XXXVII of CPC had been affected.

26. No purpose would be served in impleading the Chairman of the

Society as an independent party and also the employee, who has left

employment. Neither Defendant No.2 nor Defendant No.4 was held to be

necessary party to the Suit. Thus, names of Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were

deleted under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

27. The appearance under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC on behalf of the

Society, i.e. Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust, filed on

RFA 471/2022 Page 8 of 17

11.10.2019, was accepted and the summons for Judgement, were directed to

be served upon Defendant No.3.

28. Learned District Judge, in the impugned Order dated 07.06.2022,

observed that the liability of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest,

had not been denied and that there was no whisper in this regard. The entire

emphasis of the Applicant was only on one fact that the Applicant Lala Sher

Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society is a separate entity and has

nothing to do with the present case, as the liability was either of Presidium

School, Sector 22, Dwarka or Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust.

29. Admittedly, Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society

has not annexed any document to substantiate its claim that is a separate

legal entity and it has nothing to do with either Presidium School, Sector 22,

Dwarka or Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust. Lala Sher Singh

memorial along with the Application for appearance filed before the Court

in compliance of Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) of CPC, mentioned the following

address for service of summons for Judgment:-

“Prudence School (earlier Presidium School),

through its Manager,

Plot No.18, Dwarka Sector-22

(opposite Green Valley Apartment)

New Delhi-110077.”

30. From the above address given by the Applicant, it became abundantly

clear that the Applicant i.e., Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust

Society is running Prudence School, which is earlier named as Presidium

School from Plot No.18, Sector 22, Dwarka.

RFA 471/2022 Page 9 of 17

31. Furthermore, in the cheque, it has been mentioned that it has been

issued on behalf of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher

Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society). The nomenclature A-U-O

means “A Unit Of”. Further, reference was made to the Form 26AS,

whereby the interest TDS certificate was given by Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. Further, affiliation issued by CBSE

also reflected that the School was run by the Trust / Society of Lala Sher

Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, of which Sh. G. S. Matharoo

was the Chairman. Even the Treasurer of Prudence School, namely Akash

Gupta, is the President of Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust.

32. It was held that it was only for this reason that the name of Presidium

School, Sector 22 Dwarka, Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust and

Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society had been used

interchangeably in various documents. Most importantly, the Plaintiff had

arrayed, by way of abundant caution and to avoid any technicalities, all the

entities as party to the present Suit. Even the Presidium Educational

Institution Pvt. Ltd. had been arrayed as Defendant No.4, as in the

Promissory Note the Word "Company" was used.

33. It was further observed that even if it is accepted that Presidium

Educational & Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan

Vigyan Trust Society are separate entities, the Applicant / Defendant No.3

cannot escape the truth that Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka was in

fact, run by it. The nomenclature "Presidium" only represents the brand

name under which the Applicant / Defendant No.3 is running the school and

it has no separate legal identity. It is also only for this reason, the name of

RFA 471/2022 Page 10 of 17

Applicant / Defendant No. 3 was mentioned in the brackets, on the three

cheques issued to the Plaintiff.

34. Furthermore, Defendant No.3 itself gave the address for service of

summons for Judgment of Prudence School, Sector 22, Dwarka, which again

reflected that they were one entity. Merely because the name of Lala Sher

Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, was mentioned along with

that of Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust as Defendant No.3, does

not absolve Defendant No.3 from the liability, on the technical defence.

Hence, the Leave to Defend Application was dismissed and the Suit of

the Plaintiff was decreed.

35. Aggrieved by the said Judgement, present Appeal had been preferred.

The grounds of challenge are that grant of Leave is the ordinary Rule and

denial is an exception. Reference has been made to be B. L. Kashyap & Sons

Ltd. Versus JMS Steels & Power Corporation, C.A. No.379/2022, wherein it

has been observed that if there remains a reasonable doubt about the

probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions could be imposed while

granting Leave to Defend, but denying the Leave would be ordinarily

countenanced only in such cases where Defendant fails to show any genuine

triable issue and the defence is found to be frivolous or vexatious.

36. Learned Trial Court has misconstrued that Defendant No.1, a public

School was being controlled and operated by Defendant No.3, which is a

Charitable Trust.

37. The Appellant, as per the Plaintiff, is a Society registered under the

Societies Act, which is also evident from the impleadment of Defendant

RFA 471/2022 Page 11 of 17

No.3, through its Chairman / Trustee. Therefore, the Suit was not

maintainable against the Appellant.

38. It is further asserted that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan

Trust Society and Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust are different

legal entities and not connected to each other and Leave to Defend should

have been allowed.

39. It was claimed that learned District Judge has misconstrued that as

Defendant No.3 had been defined as both, Presidium Educational &

Charitable Trust as well as the Trust: Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan

Vigyan Trust Society, while there is no such independent entity in existence

and therefore, the explanation of the learned District Judge, is not tenable in

this regard.

40. Furthermore, the impugned Order dated 07.06.2022 has been passed

against Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society and the

name of Defendant No.3 Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust is

missing, which means no Decree has been passed against Defendant No.3.

In fact, the Decree has been passed against the person, who was not the

original Defendant.

41. It is further asserted that Defendant No.3 had remained unserved

therefore, treating the Application of Leave to Defend filed on behalf of Lala

Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, on behalf of Defendant

No.3, is bad and not sustainable.

42. Learned District Judge has ignored that after Order dated 20.08.2020

deleting Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4, only Defendant No.3 survived as sole

RFA 471/2022 Page 12 of 17

Defendant. This is a case of non-application of judicial mind and substantial

miscarriage of justice and the impugned Order is not sustainable.

43. Moreover, as per the Report of the Nazir dated 14.09.2020, Summons

had been issued to Defendant No.3 i.e., Presidium Educational and

Charitable Trust, which were received unserved. Therefore, when the sole

Defendant had been unserved, the Decree could not have followed.

44. It has also not been considered that there was no privity of contract

between the Plaintiff and the Appellant. It has been erroneously observed by

the learned District Judge that no documents had been filed by the Appellant

to show that Appellant and Defendant No.3 are two different entities.

45. On the contrary, it is neither the case of the Plaintiff nor the

documents have been filed by the Plaintiff to claim that Appellant and

Defendant No.3 are the same entity.

46. In the present case, the Appellant had raised serious question of

maintainability of the case against a third party i.e. the Appellant, which

entitled him to unconditional Leave to Defend, but the same has not been

considered.

47. Furthermore, an Application under Section 153 CPC had been filed

on behalf of the Plaintiff to make following persons as Defendant No.1:

(i) The Presidium School, Sec 22, Dwarka

(ii) Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.

48. But this Application had not been decided and the Leave to Defend

Application, has been rejected. It is submitted that the aforesaid

Judgement be set aside and the Leave to Defend Application of the

Appellant be allowed.

RFA 471/2022 Page 13 of 17

Submissions Heard and Record Perused.

49. The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent, was that she had given a loan

of Rs.15,00,000/- to Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, for which a

demand Promissory Note was duly executed on 02.05.2017, on which Ms.

Neerja Chawla, as authorized signatory, had signed.

50. It was asserted by the Plaintiff that having so received the loan, three

cheques, one cheque dated 30.04.2018 for principal amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- and other two cheques dated 07.04.2018 and 07.05.2018 of

Rs.14,625/- each, had been issued by Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka

(A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society), though all

three cheques on presentation got dishonoured with Returning Memo dated

16.05.2018 with remarks „Drawers’s signature not as per mandate or

drawers’ signature differ‟.

51. First main contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that Lala

Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was never impleaded as

party, but decree has been passed only its name. The objection was taken the

sole surviving Defendant No.3, was in fact Presidium Educational &

Charitable Trust. Since, Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust

Society was not made a party, decree could not have been passed against it,

which is third party.

52. First aspect, which may be emphasized is that Defendant No.1 /

Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka; Defendant No.2 Neerja Chawla

(Authorized Signatory) and Defendant No.4 Presidium Educational

Institution Private Limited have been deleted by learned District Judge vide

RFA 471/2022 Page 14 of 17

Order dated 20.08.2020 by observing that they were not necessary party to

the Suit.

53. Pertinently, in Defendant No.3, both Presidium Educational &

Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust

Society have been mentioned and they were clubbed as one entity. Even if

the contention of the Appellant is accepted that these two are separate

entities, then merely because they were shown as Defendant No.3, would

not imply that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was

not a party to the present Suit. This is further evident from the fact that on

receiving the summons for appearance, Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan

Vigyan Trust Society had furnished its address for service of summons for

Judgment, which was that of the school. To say that Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was not a party or that it had not

received any summons would be to take hyper-technical objection, which in

substance, has no merits.

54. The Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust may not be a relevant

party, but definitely Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society

was the main party, which had survived after deletion of Defendant Nos.1, 2

and 4. It is frivolous plea taken by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan

Trust Society that it was not a party to the present Suit. Hyper-technicality

or mere error in mentioning the two entities as separate Defendants or

putting them as one, does not take away the substance of impleading both

the entities. Learned District Judge therefore, rightly rejected this

contention of the Appellant.

RFA 471/2022 Page 15 of 17

55. Another and more relevant contention was that Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society had no concern with the loan

allegedly taken by Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka through its

Authorized Signatory Neerja Chawla.

56. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to these three cheques which

reflect that they have been issued on behalf of Presidium School, Sector-22,

Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society).

Cheques were signed by two Authorized Signatories of Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. For them, now to say that they had

not issued these cheques, would be to turn back on a document, which

speaks otherwise.

57. It is evident from the name of the two Signatories on the cheques that

Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka was a Unit of Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society and the cheques had been issued by

this Society. It cannot now deny its liability under these three cheques.

58. The plea that the loan had not been taken by Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society is absolutely not acceptable for the

loan may have been taken by Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka, but the

cheques had been issued by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust

Society. The consideration may have been to a third party i.e. the school, but

the cheques clearly show the privity of contract between the Plaintiff and

Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.

59. It has been rightly observed by learned District Judge that signature of

the Authorized Signatory of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust

RFA 471/2022 Page 16 of 17

Society on these three cheques, clearly speak of the contract between the

Plaintiff and the Appellant.

60. The last circumstance to conclude the controversy, is the Form 26AS,

whereby the interest TDS Certificate was given by Lala Sher Singh

Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. Further, affiliation issued by CBSE

also reflected that the school was run by the Trust / Society of Lala Sher

Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, of which Sh. G. S. Matharoo

was the Chairman. Even the Treasurer of Prudence School, namely Akash

Gupta, is the President of Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust.

61. Learned District Judge has also rightly observed that after the service

of summons for appearance the address for service of summons for

Judgment was given as that of Presidium School, which again shows that

School was merely a Unit of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan

Trust Society, which responsible for the activities of the school.

62. The next contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that there was

no agreement in respect of the interest amount, which has been awarded in

the present Suit and therefore, the Suit did not come within the scope of

Section 37 of CPC. However, firstly, as has already been referred, the

demand Promissory Note dated 02.05.2017, which clearly stipulated that

interest @ 13% per annum with monthly interest shall be payable to the

Promissory Note holder and duration of return of loan was specified as 12

months. This loan was duly received by Presidium School, which was

acknowledged vide Receipt of consideration dated 02.05.2017.

63. Secondly, claim of the Respondent is based on three cheques, out of

which subsequent two cheques were towards interest. The case of the

RFA 471/2022 Page 17 of 17

Plaintiff thus, rests on the three cheques, which amount to the Suit amount

of Rs.17,81,531/-. Therefore, the assertion that by inclusion of interest in the

present Suit, it went beyond the scope of Order XXXVII of CPC, is not

tenable.

64. It has also been asserted that an Application under Section 153 of

CPC was filed by the Plaintiff, in view of the objections taken on behalf of

the Respondent / Appellant to implead Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka

and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, through its

Chairman Sh. G. S. Matharoo, but this Application never got decided, while

Leave to Defend Application was dismissed and the Suit was decreed.

65. In this regard it may be noted that it is evidently, the Application was

made to avoid any technical objection. However, in the light of aforesaid

discussion, the non-decision of this Application is irrelevant, as the liability

of the Appellant is clearly, established from the aforesaid discussion.

66. In the end, it may be observed that the Appellant being the Society

running one of the most prestigious chain of School‟s in Delhi and NCR,

cannot be expected to contest a case for mere recovery of Rs.15,00,000/-

Lacs received in the account of the School, which is also established by the

cheques.

67. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.

68. The pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

APRIL 09, 2026/R