This revision petition challenged a trial court order permitting deposit of costs after representing that petitioners refused to receive them. The High Court upheld the recording and dismissed the petition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; No costs; 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.
C.R.P. No.3000 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3000 of 2019 and
C.M.P.Nos.19357 of 2019 & 12418 of 2020
1.V.Dakshinamoorthy 2.B.H. Himagiri Babu
.. Petitioners
vs.
1.N.Syamasundara Naidu 2.The Sub-Registrar, Gudiyatham, (Exonerated) .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 24.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.98 of 2016 in O.S.No.130 of 2014 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudiyatham.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sriram For Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent (For R1) : Ms.K.Kalpana (For R2) : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi Additional Government Pleader (CS)
1/6
C.R.P. No.3000 of 2019
ORDER
O.S.No.130 of 2014 is a suit for Specific Performance for an agreement of sale. It was presented by the petitioners against the first respondent herein. The suit resulted in an exparte decree on 10.12.2015. To set aside the same, an application was filed together with an application to condone the delay of 65 days in filing the said application. The application was allowed on 02.03.2017, directing payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the respondents herein to the petitioners. The matter was next called on 24.03.2017. On that day, the Court recorded that the respondents had refused to receive the cost and permitted the same to deposit into the Court.
the revision petitioners and Ms.K.Kalpana, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also heard Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) for the 2nd respondent.
vehemently contend that no application was filed under Section 148 of C.P.C. Therefore, the Court below was wrong in permitting deposit of the 2/6
C.R.P. No.3000 of 2019
cost into Court. He would also argue that without an application being filed under Section 148 of C.P.C, the Court below does not have the power to extend time and therefore, prays this Court to allow the revision. He would also submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Court below, an application to set aside the exparte decree was numbered, taken up and also dismissed by the trial Court, against which, an appeal is now pending in C.M.A.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore.
is true that the exparte decree, which has been set aside by the learned Judge, exercising his discretion, on payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/- as
costs, which had to be paid on or before 23.03.2017. When the matter https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6
C.R.P. No.3000 of 2019
was called on 24.03.2017, it was represented that the petitioners have refused to receive the costs and therefore, the Court permitted the same to be deposited to the credit of the suit. An application under Section 148 of C.P.C., would have been necessary if the petitioners therein/respondents herein had not tendered the cost to the civil revision petitioners. That is not the case here. The Court has recorded that the petitioners had refused to receive the cost.
4/6
C.R.P. No.3000 of 2019
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
03.08.2023
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No kak
To
Copy to
5/6
C.R.P. No.3000 of 2019
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.3000 of 2019
03.08.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 against the recording of court that petitioners refused to receive costs.
Whether the trial court erred in permitting deposit of costs into court when the petitioner refused to receive them.
V.Dakshinamoorthy
B.H. Himagiri Babu
N.Syamasundara Naidu
The Sub-Registrar, Gudiyatham
V. Lakshminarayan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
