Dismissed

M. Hemanth Kumar v. A.S. Nandeesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2022CRP/2573/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the imposition of suit costs as a condition for setting aside an ex parte decree. The court distinguished cited precedents requiring reasons for heavy deposits, holding suit costs here were not onerous and the order warranted no interference.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; 30 days granted to comply with the trial court's condition to deposit suit costs.

M. Hemanth Kumar Vs A.S. Nandeesh — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.2573 of 2019

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09.07.2019 imposing suit costs of Rs.49,849/- to be deposited as a condition for allowing I.A.No.356 of 2018 in O.S.No.54 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor in a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2018.

¶5

The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,65,353/basing on two promissory notes. The revision petitioners/defendants remained ex parte and later the trial Court passed a decree ex parte. The petitioners filed I.A.No.355 of 2018 along with I.A.No.356 of 2018 which was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 36 days in filing I.A.No.356 of 2018. The cause shown for the delay in filing the petition and for remaining ex parte is that the defendants were promised by the brother of the plaintiff by name A.S.Aranesh that the suit would be withdrawn, but failed to honour the commitment and it is only thereafter they came to know about the passing of the decree ex parte and thus they could not make appearance to contest the suit and as such filed both petitions. While allowing I.A.No.355 of 2018, the trial Court imposed costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to the respondent/plaintiff by 08.08.2019 failing which the petition to stand dismissed. The respondents have not challenged the order therein and, as

¶6

¶7

BSB, J C.R.P.No.2573 of 2019

¶8

per the information given during the course of argument, the condition was complied. However, since the trial Court imposed a condition to deposit suit costs of Rs.49,849/- while allowing I.A.No.356 of 2018, the aggrieved petitioners filed this revision petition stating that the trial Court failed to give reasons for imposing such onerous condition while allowing the petition.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court ought to have given reasons for imposing heavy amount of suit costs as condition precedent while allowing the petition and the order is liable to be set aside for want of reasons and paced reliance on the decision of this High Court in Gopal and Co., V.K.Soni and Durga Prasad Soni Vs Kure Balarajaiah Siddiramulu, a firm rep.by its Managing Partner, K.Siddiramulu¹ , wherein this High Court observed that the trial Court ought not to have imposed onerous condition of deposit of half of the decretal amount and costs, while allowing petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so which have to be clearly stated in the order requiring the defendant to deposit the said amount. In the cited case, the High Court held at para 12 as follows:

¶10

“From the principles laid down by various High Courts adumbrated above. There is no doubt that in setting aside an ex parte decree, the Court ought not to impose onerous conditions unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so which have to be clearly stated in the order. Requiring the defendant to deposit half of the decretal amount or even 1/3^rd of the decretal

¶11

1 1994(1) ALT 410

¶12

¶13

BSB, J C.R.P.No.2573 of 2019

¶14

amount is an onerous condition for which there must be a reasonable ground and unless such grounds are made out it would be an unreasonable condition. If the facts and circumstances of the case warrant an onerous condition to be imposed, the order imposing such conditions should be a speaking one giving out the reasons for imposing such conditions as stated in V.Kasturi Bat’s case (supra). Such onerous conditions cannot be imposed by laconic and unspeaking orders.”

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner has come up with both petitions within a short span of time after passing of ex parte decree and the petitioners are not avoiding to defend the suit. However, to balance the interest of both parties, suitable terms can be imposed while allowing the petition as Order IX Rule 13 CPC itself permits of imposition such terms as are deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of each case. Since it is only suit costs which are directed to be paid, the said condition cannot be treated as onerous, viewing only at the quantum of the suit costs, in the light of the amount of suit claim. What is cautioned in the decision cited is to give reasons for imposing onerous conditions where heavy amount of half of the decretal amount and costs were directed to be paid in that case. Therefore, the same analogy cannot be adopted to the present suit. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order passed in the revision petition.

¶16

In the result, the petition is dismissed. However the revision petitioners are given 30 days time from the date of this order to comply the condition.

¶17

¶18

BSB, J C.R.P.No.2573 of 2019

¶19

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

_____________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶22

Dt.20-12-2022 Note: CC by 26.12.2022 (B/o) PNV