R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS 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 the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 (Security 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 state Government. 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.
(3.) 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 the facts 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 the 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." ;