Judgment dismissing a civil suit before the Madras High Court as settled out of court upon endorsement by plaintiff and counsel, resulting in permission for return of court fees and deletion of the attachment order for property.
Scripting or taxing the entire court fees for return to the plaintiff.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24. 1 1 . 2 0 1 7
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N
C. S . N o . 19 6 of 20 1 5
An d
O. A . N o . 19 1 0 of 20 1 5
K.M.A.Muthu ... Plaintiff
V s.
1. Mrs.Thanaletchumi
2. A.Loganathan
3. A.Dhanapalan
4. A.Pakkialetchumi ... Defendants
P R A Y E R : This Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with Order
VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for the following reliefs:
(i) directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty
Five Lakhs only) towards principal amount; Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) towards the interest at 24% per annum for the period from 27.10.2013 to 27.2.2015 totalling a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs only);
2
(ii) direct the defendants to pay the future interest at 12% on the principal sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation;
(iii) award the costs of this suit.
***
For Plaintiff : Mr. C.Ajith Kumar
For 3rd Defendant: Mr. E.Naveen
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel for the plaintiff made the following endorsement:-
"The suit claim is received from the parties
outside the Court settlement. Hence, the suit may be
dismissed as withdrawn."
2 . The said endorsement was signed by both the plaintiff and the
learned counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as
settled out of Court.
3 . The plaintiff is entitled to return of the entire Court fees as per rules.
3
4 . It is also stated that in A.No. 1910 of 2015, this Court had attached
the property bearing Plot No. 52, Old Municipal Number 48/42-B, Old Door No. 7/New Door No.13, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017, covered by the sanctioned layout numbers 88/49, 69/50 and 72 of 1956 of the Corporation of Chennai being part of R.S.No. 28, Old T.S.No. 4719 and bearing part of the present number 8016/3 (part) and T.S.No. 8018/2, situated within the registration District of Chennai South and the Sub Registration District of T.Nagar, measuring as per documents 2120 sq.ft., as per Patta 2141 sq.ft., measuring east to west on the Northern side 80 feet and on the southern side 81.5 feet north to south on the eastern side 27 feet and on the western side 26 feet and bounded on the North by Door No. 6, North Usman Road, South by Door No.8, North Usman Road, east by Door No.9, of Porur Sundaram Street and also Door No.15 of Padmanaba Street
and on the West by North Usman Road, T.Nagar, chennai and the building constructed thereon having an extent of 7000 sq.ft., or thereabouts.
5. In view of the fact that the suit has been withdrawn, the order of attachment has to be necessarily raised.
C. V . K A R T H I K E Y A N , J.
4
vs g
6. This order may also be communicated with the Office of the Sub-
Registrar, T.Nagar.
24.11.2016
vsg
C C : The Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, Chennai.
N o t e : Is s u e ord e r co p y on 27. 1 1 . 2 0 1 7
C. S . N o . 19 6 of 20 1 5
An d
O. A . N o . 19 1 0 of 20 1 5
5
Mrs. Thanaletchumi
A. Loganathan
A. Dhanapalan
A. Pakkialetchumi
C. V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
