In IA No.1 of 2018, the High Court of Telangana extended time to pay costs for an earlier civil revision. Despite noting the petitioner's lack of vigilance, the court granted the petition but imposed higher costs of Rs. 10,000. The order amends a previous dispatch date.
Petition allowed on condition of payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs by 08-06-2023.
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.
[2566 ]
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
l.A No.1 OF 2018
IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5726 OF 2011
Between:
Both are FUo. 5-39/1, Macha Bolarum, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R. Distrrict. ' ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS
AND
Petition under Section 148 rlw 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time for payment of costs of Rs. 1000/(Rupees one Thousand only) to the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the interest of Justice.
Counsel for the?etitioners: M/s H. VENUGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. G.B.RAJ, ADVOCATE
The Court made the following: ORDER
This application is filed to extend the time to pay the cots imposed by this court. while allowing the revision, this court by order dated 02-11-201 7 allowed the revision on condition to deposit cots of Rs. 1oo0/- to the plaintiff within four (4) weeks from the date of order. The order was to be complied by 01-12-2017.
This application is filed in the month of April, 2018 seeking extension of time. The very revision is filed to set aside the dismissal of application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 20 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order decree. The conduct of the party shows that he is not vigilant even before the Trial court and before this court in site of specific condition there is no diligence on the part of learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
considering the above facts and circumstances, this court ordered to give one last chance, but allowed the petition on condition on payment of Rs..10,000/- as a cost of allowing this petition.
The cost in the present petition and the cost imposed in previous revision shall be paid by 08-06-2023, failing which this apptication stands closed. The cost shall be deposited before the cou( below. The court below in tum directed to pay the same to the plaintiff.
Sd/. MOHD ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Note: That the typographical error crept in wrongly reading the CRp case number in the preamble portion and docket sheet oithe Order daled 2610412023 in lA No.1 of 2018 in CRp No.5726 of 2011 and the same is conected Suo Moto. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 1610512023.
Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// L]D
To,
SECTION OFFICER
DL
PR b
I ',
HIGH COURT ML,J DATED:2610412023
AMENDED ORDER
l.A No.1 OF 2018 IN
CRP.No.5726 ot 2011
.\HE- S rA pO:
o fL
(
+ ,'1
,1
I
12 itlt2[B t
/
'- -l --
DlRECTION
a
\aF:s
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to extend time for payment of costs imposed in a prior revision order despite the petitioner's previous lack of diligence.
Whether to impose fresh costs for allowing the present petition for extension of time.
How to handle the substitution of dispatch dates in an amended order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pinjarla Sivaiah
Pinlarla Muthyalu
Smt. Manka Kalvathi
Piniarla Prasad
Justice M. Laxman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
