Dismissed¶¶33

Jahiruddin @ Zahiruddin v. Manzoor Alam

Patna HC4 Apr 2025C.Misc./641/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, C.Misc. No.641 of 2024, decided 04-04-2025 by Arun Kumar Jha, J. Keywords: Section 151 CPC inherent jurisdiction; extension of time for deposit of cost; Section 35B CPC cost for default in payment; Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC cost imposition; T.S. No. 01/2017, CIS 01/2017, Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I Kishanganj; cost Rs. 2,000/- and further cost Rs. 3,000/-; deposit at Nazarat Civil Court; impugned order dated 11.03.2024 affirmed; civil miscellaneous petition dismissed; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Kishanganj was affirmed and the civil miscellaneous petition was dismissed. ¶¶33

Jahiruddin @ Zahiruddin Vs Manzoor Alam — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Kishanganj was affirmed and the civil miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kishanganj — allowing the plaintiffs' Section 151 CPC application and extending time for deposit of cost, despite the petitioners' contention that Section 35B CPC is mandatory — suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

¶¶27

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 was passed by the learned trial court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code, after considering the objections raised by the defendants/petitioners, extending the time for making the payment of cost by the plaintiffs.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

One of the plaintiffs' witnesses had been cross-examined in part without any issue being raised about non-deposit of the cost.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 for the ends of justice; this Court found no infirmity in the said order and accordingly affirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Kishanganj.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J.), by oral judgment dated 04-04-2025, dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition (C.Misc. No.641 of 2024) filed by defendants challenging the order dated 11.03.2024 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Kishanganj in T.S. No. 01/2017, whereby the plaintiffs'-respondents' application under Section 151 CPC was allowed, extending time to deposit costs (Rs. 2,000/- imposed on 22.03.2023 when the plaintiffs' Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC application was allowed, with further cost of Rs. 3,000/-), and the defendants'-petitioners' objection was rejected. Held: the impugned order was passed by the trial court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC after considering the objections raised by the defendants/petitioners; one of the plaintiffs' witnesses had been cross-examined in part without any issue being raised about non-deposit of the cost; the order was passed for the ends of justice and the High Court found no infirmity in it. The impugned order was affirmed and the petition dismissed. The Court did not adjudicate the petitioners' contention that Section 35B CPC is mandatory beyond holding that the order contained no infirmity.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.641 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Jahiruddin @ Zahiruddin S/o Late Abdul Jabbar Resident of Village and P.O.-Haldikhora, P.S.-Kochadhaman, District-Kishanganj

¶4

Samiruddin S/o Late Doma Resident of Village and P.O.-Haldikhora, P.S.Kochadhaman, District-Kishanganj

¶5

Giranu S/o Late Doma Resident of Village and P.O.-Haldikhora, P.S.Kochadhaman, District-Kishanganj

¶6

Gulzara W/o Late Ghauri Resident of Village and P.O.-Haldikhora, P.S.Kochadhaman, District-Kishanganj

¶7

... ... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Manzoor Alam S/o Late Sainuddin Resident of Village-Haldikhora, P.S.Kochadhaman,

¶10

Nargis Begum W/o Izhar Alam, D/o Late Sainuddin Resident of VillageHaldikhora, P.S.-Kochadhaman, District-Kishanganj.

¶11

Kamrun Nisha Wife of Hasebul Raman, D/o Late Sainuddin Resident of Village and P.O.-Nisandara, P.S.-Bahadurganj District-Kishanganj.

¶12

Noor Begum W/o Ali Hussain, D/o Late Sainuddin R/O Barijan, P.O.Kashibari Hat, P.S.-Kochadhaman, Dishrict-Kishanganj.

¶13

Kulsum Begum W/o Shakir Alam, D/o Late Sainuddin Resident of Village and P.O.- Laucha, P.S.-Bahadurganj District-Kishanganj.

¶14

Saidul Rahman Late Sametun Missa, who Was, D/o Late Sainuddin Resident of Village-Balia Kashibari, P.O.Chargharia, P.S.-Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj.

¶15

... ... Respondents

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Firoz Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 04-04-2025

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I

¶19

intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

¶20

The present petition has been filed seeking

¶21

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.641 of 2024 dt.04-04-2025 2/4

¶22

following relief(s):

¶23

“I. For setting aside the order dated 11.03.2024 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Kishanganj passed in T.S. No. 01/2017, CIS 01/2017 (Contained in Annexure-9) whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs’-respondents’ petition dated 20.06.2023, u/s 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed directing to deposit the cost of Rs. 3,000/- at the Nazarat Civil Court and rejected the prayer of the defendantspetitioners without considering the law and citation referred before the court and without any reason.

¶24

II. For any other relief/reliefs for which the defendants-petitioners are found to be entitled or as lordships may deem fit and proper.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has been allowed on 22.03.2023 while imposing the cost of Rs. 2,000/-. But the said cost was not deposited by the plaintiffs on the next date of hearing. The plaintiffs filed another application on 20.06.2023 under Section 151 of the Code for allowing them to deposit the cost. The learned trial court, ignoring the specific

¶26

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.641 of 2024 dt.04-04-2025 3/4

¶27

provision of law as prescribed under Section 35B of the Code, allowed the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code on 20.06.2023 while directing the plaintiffs to deposit the cost with imposition of further cost of Rs. 3,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that the provision of Section 35B of the Code is mandatory and the learned trial court should not have allowed the extension of time for depositing the cost in this manner.

¶28

Perused the record.

¶29

Perusal of record shows the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 has been passed by the learned trial court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code. The learned trial court has considered the objections raised by the defendants/petitioners and thereafter, passed the impugned order extending the time for making the payment of cost by the plaintiffs. It also appears that one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses was cross-examined in part without any issue being raised about non-depositing of the cost. The learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 for the ends of justice and this Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. Hence, the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Kishanganj is hereby

¶30

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.641 of 2024 dt.04-04-2025 4/4

¶31

affirmed.

¶32