The High Court set aside a Trial Court order rejecting a request for extension of time to pay costs under CPC Section 148. The revision was allowed as the court failed to consider reasons provided in an affidavit, lacking a liberal approach required in money recovery suits.
The order dated 29.08.2018 is set aside; petitioner directed to pay Rs.2,500/- as cost.
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 : 14.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4031 of 2018 Corporation Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Nallur Branch, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ...Petitioner Vs 1. M.Pachaiyammal 2. M.Ramesh 3. M.Suresh ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.50 of 2018 in I.A.No.20 of 2018 in O.S.No.Nil of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai dated 29.08.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash Babu
O R D E R
The only ground on which the petitioner's request for extension of
time came to be rejected is the observation of the Trial Court that the Bank was unable to pay even a meager amount of Rs.250/-. It is seen that the
2
petitioner has assigned the reason for not paying the cost imposed within the stipulated time by stating that the order imposing the cost was received belatedly and that their counsel had also failed to inform the Bank about the conditional order in time.
petitioner's application for extending the time, the present order may not proper.
notice before the impugned order came to be passed, they had not chosen to appear before the Court and as such, this Court is of the view that the present Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of, without notice to the respondents and by increasing the cost.
3
I.A.No.20 of 2018 in O.S.No.Nil of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the District Legal Service Authority, Tiruvannamalai District, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On production of such proof of payment of the costs, the learned Principal District Judge,Tiruvannamalai shall instruct his Registry to
number the suit, if it is otherwise in order.
14.12.2018
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No hvk
To
4
M.S.RAMESH.,J
hvk
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4031 of 2018
14.12.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's request for extension of time without considering the affdavit of reasons.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the extension of time was liable to be set aside under Section 115 of CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Corporation Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Nallur Branch, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.
M.Pachaiyammal
M.Ramesh
M.Suresh
M.S.RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
