The High Court, Bilaspur dismissed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against an order quashing proceedings for non-compliance with a cost payment direction. The Court held the quashing order was legal as the appellant failed to pay costs within the stipulated time.
Motion for set aside order and restoration of Misc. Appeal No.7/2010 dismissed summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MA No. 26 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant – Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 – Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 – None, though served as per office note dated 20-102016.
For Respondents 5 and 6 – Ms. Shobha Kashyap, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
Order on Board
25-10-2016
-2-
2010 subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- payable to the respondents within 2 months from the date of order of this Court dated 10-01-2012. After payment in stipulated time, this Court directed the first appellate court to restore the Misc. Case No.7/2010 thereafter as the appellant not complied with the order of this Court by paying cost of Rs.500/- to the respondents within 2 months from the date of the order, i.e., 10-01-2012, the Court below vide order dated 25-01-2016 dismissed the Misc. Suit No.2/2012 wherein it is held as the appellant not complied with the order passed by the High Court, hence, it would not be appropriate to permit for deposit of cost as directed. Hence, quashed the proceedings on non-compliance of the order of this Court. Against the said order dated 25-01-2016, the appellant has preferred the instant Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
-3-
parties have appeared before this Court, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents. The first appellate Court shall proceed to decide the miscellaneous case in accordance with law on its own merit."
It goes to show that the order of this Court was very clear that the appellant was required to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the respondents within a period of two months from the date of that order. The appellant never came to this Court for extension of time. With this, the Court below had no opportunity to comply with the order passed by this Court.
Sd/- (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE
Aadil
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the restoration petition due to non-payment of costs previously directed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Verma
Devashish Bhadra
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Narayanpur
Raghunath Kuldeep
President Janpad Panchayat Narayanpur
Tahsildar, Narayanpur
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
