MANAGEMENT OF THE GOODWILL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND ANR. versus SMT. J. MARY SUSHEELA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 29-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MANAGEMENT OF THE GOODWILL 
GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND ANR. 
V. 
SMT. J. MARY SUSHEELA AND ORS. 
APRIL 29, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 12 Rule 6 and Order 14 Rule 
2-Trial court disposing of suit on only one of the issues framed-High Courl C 
in appeal taking up all issues initially framed by trial court and rendering 
findings thereon-Justification of-Held: When the party has failed to pray 
for adjudication of all other issues before High Court and also no evidence 
is led, High Court not justified in expanding the scope of appeal by adjudicating 
on all iSSJleS. 
D 
Respondent No.I-teacher filed a suit for mandatory injunction 
directing the appellants-management of the school and the principal to 
assign teaching work to her pursuant to the order of appointment. Trial 
court framed six issues, however took up only one issue and dismissed the 
suit as respondent No.I failed to establish her entitlement for mandatory 
injunction directing to assign her work. Respondent No.I filed an appeal. E 
Single Judge decreed the suit and directed the management to pay back 
wages to respondent No.I. Hence the present appeal. 
This court passed various interim orders pursuant to which 
respondent No I has been rendering services. Subsequently, management F 
appointed N on regular basis. Thereafter this Court directed her to be 
impleaded as party in the present appeal. State Government was also 
impleaded as party to ascertain its stand with regard to the approval of 
appointment of respondent No. I by it. 
Partly allowing the appeal\ the Court 
HELD: I. I. The effect of alleged admission/concession by the 
Management if any, was required to be considered in the light of the stand 
taken by the Principal. High Court seems to have been completely I011t sight 
G 
of this aspect. As no evidence was led and even respondent No. I was not H 
1013 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A examined, the High Court ought not to have considered all the issues; 
particularly when respondent No.1 herself had not prayed for adjudication 
of other issues by the High Court. On the contrary, her stand was that the 
trial court should have decided all lhe issues. It is of considerable 
importance that in the memorandum of appeal before the High Court there 
B was no plea or ground taken that the suit ought to have been decreed on 
the basis of alleged admission/concession by the Management. 
11017-G, H; 1018-AI 
1.2. High Court has made certain observations which have absolutely 
no bearing on the subject-matter of the issues and were not even remotely 
C connected •vith the subject-matter of controversy. That being the position, 
the judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. The matter 
shall be considered by the trial court afresh. 11018-Cf 
1.3. The engagement of the respondent No.I and N shall continue till 
disposal of the suit. N is not a party to the suit and so is the State. For 
D effective adjudication they shall be impleaded as parties in the suit, in view 
of their impletion in the present appeal. 11018-DJ 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5228 of 
2000. 
From the Jud&ment and Order dated 24.9.1998 of the Karnataka High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 565 of 1989. 
S.S. Javali, P.R. Ramasesh, B.V. Sabrad and Ms. Vandana Jalan for the 
Appellant. 
R.S. Hegde, Chander Prakash, A. Nagabhushanam for P.P. Singh, Anil 
K. Mishra, Sanjay R. Hegde, Satya Mitra for N. Ganpathy and G.V. 
Chadrasekhar for K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. A controversy which could have been solved 
long back has been blown out of proportion, making the parties travel through 
the corridors of various comts and has finally landed in this Court. Whenever 
there is prolongation of litigation, ultimate sufferers are the litigating pa11ies, 
and inevitably justice delivery system. Resultant is miscarriage of justice. 
-
..
r 
MANAG. OFTHEGOODWILLGIRLSHIGHSCBOOL v.JMARY·SUSHEELA[PASAYAT,J.] ) QJ 5 
It is painful to notice that the arduous journey of litigating parties A 
started about two decades back in an educational institution, named Goodwill 
Girls' High School. Ironically, the controversy started because of alleged "ill 
will" amongst the parties. Helen 'Keller, the great humanist had once said: · 
"The highest re.suit of education is tolerance." But the foundation of the 
dispute was allege
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.