The High Court allowed a civil revision petition and set aside an order imposing court costs on a petitioner who had withdrawn contentions before the trial commenced in an injunction suit.
The cost imposed against the petitioner/first defendant in the underlying suit was set aside and the revision petition was disposed of accordingly.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931
CRP.No. 454 of 2009(B)
--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2009 IN IA-1184/2008 IN OS.628/2005 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE
REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/IST DEFENDANT:
RANDAMKUNNUCHALIL AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, SALMA MANZIL, ELETTIL AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
BY ADV. MR.P.T.MOHANKUMAR MR.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
RAROTH ABDUL HAKKEEM, S/O.UTHOOTTY, KOTTOOR AMSOM, PALOLI DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
C.R.P.No.454 of 2009 - B
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.628 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court II, Kozhikode. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the first respondent was the plaintiff. The second defendant passed away during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff filed a statement that the legal representatives of the second defendant need not be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. First defendant who had filed a written statement earlier disputing the suit claim filed a statement withdrawing his contentions. The court below decreed the suit with cost of the plaintiff. In awarding cost, the court imposed a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the plaintiff as realisable from the first defendant. Petitioner/first defendant moved an application for reviewing the cost awarded. That application was dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.
2
C.R.P.No.454 of 2009 - B
C.R.P.No.454 of 2009 - B
3
aside the impugned order, it is ordered the cost imposed against
the first defendant in the suit shall also stand set aside.
Revision petition is disposed of as above.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the imposition of substantial court costs against a defendant who withdrew contentions before trial adjudication was proper.
Whether the cost awarded in an injunction suit exceeded the maximum permissible limit under Civil Rules of Practice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Randamkunnuchalil Ahammed Kutty Haji
Raroth Abdul Hakkeem
S.S. Satheesacharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
