In two miscellaneous civil revision petitions under Article 226 against trial court orders conditioning the grant of leave to defend suits on a modest sum deposit, the High Court found no illegality or error warranting interference.
Petitioner directed to deposit the amount within two weeks; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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: 15.03.2019
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2027 and 2028 of 2009
M.P.No.1 of 2009 and M.P.No. 1 of 2009
K.Sriram ... Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs.
1.Sanjay Singhi (HUF)
2. M/s Morgan Industries Limited,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Venkatraman
109, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034
3. Mr.Venkatraman ... Respondents in C.R.P.(NPD)
No. 2027 of 2009
1.Vinod Sanklecha
2. M/s Morgan Industries Limited,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Venkatraman
109, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034
3. Mr.Venkatraman ... Respondents in C.R.P.(NPD)
No.2028 of 2009
2
PRAYER in CRP.No.2027 of 2009 : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the conditional order dated 29.07.2008 and confirmed by judgment and decree on 22.08.2008 in I.A.No.6073 of 2008 in O.S.No.1275 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
PRAYER in CRP.No.2028 of 2009 : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the conditional order dated 29.07.2008 and confirmed by judgment and decree on 22.08.2008 in I.A.No.6074 of 2008 in O.S.No.1276 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner in both CRPs : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For Respondents in both CRPs : No appearance
The above civil revision petitions are filed as against the order passed by the trial court imposing the condition to deposit a sum of Rs.11,800/- in Interlocutory Applications viz., I.A.No.6073 of 2008 in O.S.No.1275 of 2006 and I.A.No.6074 of 2008 in O.S.No.1276 of 2006, filed to leave to defend the suit.
3
when the leave itself granted by the trial court. The revision petitioner can very well establish the defence as to maintainability of the suit whether the suit is maintainable or the money is recoverable cannot be tested in this revision, all those facts are matter of evidence. The trial
Court has not directed the revision petitioner to pay the amount to the plaintiff, only directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.11,800/- in the Court deposit. Above amount in my view is not onerous to him. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court does not require any interference.
4
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
msv
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
by the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today (15.03.2019). Thereafter, the trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.Nos.1275 and 1276 of 2006 within a period of six(6) months.
15.03.2019
msv
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order: Non-speaking order
To
The learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2027 and 2028 of 2009 M.P.No.1 of 2009 and M.P.No. 1 of 2009
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with a trial court order imposing a condition to deposit money to leave to defend a suit.
Whether the deposit amount ordered is onerous enough to warrant revisional interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Sriram
Sanjay Singhi
Morgan Industries Limited
Venkatraman
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
