JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 03.03.2017, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts in the matter are that the petitioner's wards were admitted in the school of respondent No. 1 i.e. Lala Kamlapat Singhaniya Education Centre, Gotan. By virtue of the petitioner being in the service of respondent No. 2, the children of the petitioner were admitted in the school and were also granted certain concession on the payment of fees, being the ward of employee of respondent No. 2. The petitioner was dismissed from the services of respondent No. 2's employment in January, 2008. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred a suit before the learned trial court, specifically praying therein that the respondent should not dislodge the wards of the petitioner from the Education Institute and their name should not be deleted from the register of their school. The petitioner also prayed in his suit that respondent No. 1 should not stop the children of the petitioner from taking admission in other schools. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed the written statements in the trial court wherein besides other contentions, in Para 6 of special objections of the written statement it has been contended that a fees of Rs. 1,76,185/- is due from the children of the petitioner and the same should be directed to be paid by the petitioner. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner who submits that because of the averments made in para 6, an amount due to the petitioner is being sought to be recovered. In these circumstances, the petitioner submits that after the services of the petitioner having been terminated, the ward of the petitioner are being charged a higher fees than the concessional rate and further proper education is not been imparted to the children of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an amount of Rs. 1,42,772/- is sought to being recovered from the petitioner on account of fees due for imparting education to the children of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an amount of Rs. 1,42,772/- is sought to being recovered from the petitioner on account of fees due for imparting education to the children of petitioner. 4. In my view when the suit itself is for the purpose of not disassociating or removing wards of the petitioner from the school of respondent No. 1, then, merely because mentioning of an amount due from the petitioner is prayed to be recovered by filing a written statement by respondent No. 1 and 2 will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to amend the suit by filing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. 5. 5. I am in complete agreement with the order passed by the trial court which reads as under:- ^^mHk; i{kkas dks lquk x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk ;g okn fnukad 16-7-2013 dks izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk o vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk gsrq is'k fd;k x;k FkkA oknh }kjk gLrxr okn esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k Fkk fd izfroknhx.k oknh ds iq= o iq=h dk f'k{k.k laLFkk ls uke foPNsn ugha djs vkSj bl vk'k; dh vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd, tkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k Fkk fd izfroknhx.k oknh ds iq= o iq=h dks f'k{k.k laLFkku esa f'k{kk gsrq izos'k ls u jksds o mUgsa d{kk ls ckgj ugha djsaA oknh ds okn i= ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk izfroknh la[;k 1 ds fo:) vius iq= o iq=h ds f'k{k.k 'kqYd ds laca/k esa dksbZ vuqrks"k ugha pkgk x;k FkkA izkFkZuk i= vkMZj 6 :y 17 lhihlh ds lkFk izLrqr la'kksf/kr okn i= o ifjf'k"V o Qhl fooj.k ds voyksdu ls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd oknh us izfr la[;k 1 ls dqy 1]47]772@& :i;s olwy fd, tkus ;ksX; crk, gSA oknh vkns'kk/khu izkFkZuk i= ds tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk o vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk ds bl okn esa vkKkid O;kns'k ds tfj;s izfr la[;k 1 ls mDr jkf'k okil izkIr djus dk vuqrks"k la'kksf/kr djokuk pkgrk gSA oknh dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= esa okafNr vuqrks"k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk okafNr vuqrks"k izfroknh la[;k 1 ds fo:) /ku olwyh dh izd`fr dk gS vkSj gLrxr okn fu"ks/kkKk gsrq okn gS ftlls Li"V gS okafNr vuqrks"k o okn ds vuqrks"k dh izd`fr fHkUu&fHkUu gSA dsoy okn esa vkKkid O;kns'k ds tfj;s jkf'k izkIr djuk vafdr djus ek= ls okafNr vuqrks"k dks fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA U;kf;d n`"Vkar pkScs lq'khy pUnzk cuke jkt cgknqj] 1977 ,ŒvkbZŒvkjŒ 259] esa ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd ;fn la'kks/ku ls okn dh izd`fr ifjorZu gks rks la'kks/ku dh vuqefr ugha nh tkuh pkfg,A mijksDr leLr foospukuqlkj o mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk okafNr la'kks/ku dh vuqefr ls okn dh izd`fr esa vko';d :i ifjorZu gksxk ftlls LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds bl okn esa /ku olwyh dk vuqrks"k 'kkfey gks tkosxk tks fof/k vuqlkj vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 6. It is also a fact that if the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC of the petitioner is allowed then the nature of the suit will be changed and same will be in the shape of a suit for recovery of money due, which will be quite different and distinct from the present suit. 7. Taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the trial court on 03.03.2017. 8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. 10. The observation made in this order shall not come in the way of other appropriate legal remedies being sought by the petitioner.