This writ application was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the imposition of Rs.10,000 cost for filing a late petition for substitution of plaintiffs after 6-7 years, arguing the amount was heavy since it was already deposited.
Cost of Rs.10,000 order affirmed; writ application dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14407 of 2013
=========================================================== Bimal Kumar Rai Son Of Ganga Prasad Rai Resident Of Mauza- Rampur Shyamchand Sahastabad, Post Office- Rampur Shyamchand, Police StationRaghopur, District- Vaishali
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.14407 of 2013 dt.01-12-2016
2
Patna High Court CWJC No.14407 of 2013 dt.01-12-2016
3
Bakhtiyarpur, District- Vaishali
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RATNA DEEP PRASAD For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-12-2016
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the prayer in the present writ application is confined to the direction in the impugned order with regard to cost. It has been the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of cost is heavy and therefore the said amount be reduced reasonably.
It appears from the perusal of the impugned order as well as the consideration of the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that the suit has been filed in the year 1982. During the pendency of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14407 of 2013 dt.01-12-2016
4
the suit, some of the plaintiffs died but the petition for substitution was filed after delay of nearly 6-7 years. The learned court below though has condoned the delay and allowed the prayer for substitution as made by the plaintiffs but in order to balance the equity, the cost of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cost amount has already been deposited. In the facts and circumstances as above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned court below.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J)
Nitesh/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's discretion to impose a cost of Rs.10,000 for late substitution of plaintiffs.
Bimal Kumar Rai
Sakaldeep Rai
Pradeep Rai
Kuldeep Rai
Navdeep Rai
Jagdeep Rai
V Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
