Partly allowed

K. K. Balaji v. a. Govindan

Madras HC24 Apr 2018CRP(MD)/927/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application seeking to invoke Section 115 CPC. The court held the application was not maintainable for a specific performance suit but set aside the costs imposed by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The costs imposed by the IV Additional District Court in I.A.No.58 of 2017 are set aside; the order in the I.A. otherwise stands unaltered.

K. K. Balaji Vs a. Govindan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

CRP(MD).No.927 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No. 4062 of 2018

¶7

K.K.Balaji .. Petitioner/Petitioner/7^th Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

A.Govindan ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.06.2017 made in I.A.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.06.2017 made in I.A.No.58 of 2017 in O.S.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai.

¶14

Originally, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.NO. 1 of 2013 for specific performance against the petitioner, who is the seventh defendant in the suit and other defendants. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. At the stage of evidence, the petitioner/seventh defendant has filed I.A.No.58 of 2017 by invoking Order 12 Rule 6 and Section 115 of C.P.C and Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act and the said petition was dismissed on the basis of the admission made by the plaintiff. While dismissing the said application, cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Madurai. Aggreived against the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

The application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 and Section 115 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of C.P.C and Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act is not maintainable since the suit is one for specific performance and the same should

¶17

¶18

be decided only based on the effective trial in O.S.No.1 of 2013. Therefore, the order passed by the learned IV Additional District Court, Madurai does not warrant interference by this Court. But anyhow, this Court is inclined to set aside the cost imposed by the said court. Accordingly, the cost imposed by the IV Additional District Court, Madurai is set aside. In all other aspects, the order passed by the IV Additional District Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.58 of 2017 dated 30.06.2017 stands unaltered.

¶19

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.4062 of 2018 is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (W)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.

¶26

The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 Copies)

¶27

1 CC TO Mr.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 62988 CM

¶28

TE/SKN-RSK/SAR-4 : 22/05/2018 : 2P/5C

¶29

CRP(MD).No.927 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No. 4062 of 2018 24.04.2018

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K. K. Balaji v. a. Govindan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. K. Balaji v. a. Govindan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sathiskumar, M/a 38 Years, Vs R.Thangamani @ Mainavathy

M.Raveendhiren, Vs v.Mohamed Ali

Lakshmi Bai, Vs K.Suresh Kumar

Rameshwari Vs S.Seenivasan

P.Thangavelu, Vs S.Joseph

Mani, Vs St.Adithan @ Rajesh