Disposed

R.Sankar v. M.Bhuvaneswari

Madras HC20 Jul 2023CRP/2453/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226, the High Court addressed the low cost awarded by the trial court for a default in filing a suit restoration petition, directing a higher amount be paid by the respondents to the petitioners without further procedural interference.

What did the court decide?

Further costs of Rs.3,500 to be paid by Respondents to Petitioners imposed; no further interference needed.

R.Sankar Vs M.Bhuvaneswari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :20.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN C.R.P. No. 2453 of 2023

¶6

R. Sankar 2. R. Babu ...Petitioners

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

M. Bhuvaneswari

¶9

S. Selvarani

¶10

S. Amsa

¶11

Gnanammal ...Respondents Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Docket Order dated 16.02.2023 made in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge (FAC), Fast Track Court, Villupuram by allowing this Civil Revision Petition and pass orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. T. Dhanasekaran

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed to issue a direction to set aside the Docket Order dated 16.02.2023 made in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge (FAC), Fast Track Court), Villupuram and pass orders.

¶18

The facts of the case, is that that the the petitioners are the defendants in the suit and the suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3/Plaintiffs for partition and separate possession in respect of 21/36 shares of plaintiffs and in final decree proceedings an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds into 36 equal shares and allot 21 such shares contiguously to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs were absent. Hence, the said suit was dismissed for default. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3/Plaintiffs filed the above I.A to condone the delay of 270 days in filing a petition to restore the suit, wherein, the learned Judge has ordered costs and directed the plaintiffs who are the respondents herein to pay Rs.1,500/- to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner h avefiled the present C.R.P Hence this petition.

¶19

2/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶23

respondents are deliberately dragging the proceedings. He further submitted that the Court below ought to have dismissed the above I.A with costs. Hence prays this Court, to allow this petition.

¶24

Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that

¶25

the Cost imposed by the Court below at Rs.1,500/- is very low. Hence, this Court is inclined to impose a further costs of Rs.3,500/- to be paid by the Respondents to the petitioners and no further interference is needed.

¶26

With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is

¶27

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶28

20.07.2023

¶29

smn Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶30

To.

¶31

The Additional District Judge (FAC), Fast Track Court, Villupuram

¶32

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. Smn

¶33

3/4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

¶36

C.R.P. No. 2453 of 2023

¶37

20.07.2023

¶38

4/4

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Sankar v. M.Bhuvaneswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sankar v. M.Bhuvaneswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Tamilarasi Vs Senthil Kumar

V.Suresh Vs Sarojini @ Sathya

G. Anand Vs G.M. Moneesha

B.B.Joghee, Vs The Management

R.Ranganathan Vs a.Vadivel

Ishwariyalakshmi Vs P.Aswanth Birla