IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.01.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).3562 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 K.M.Selvamani ... Petitioner vs. S.Natarajan ... Respondent This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the learned Principal Sub Court, Erode made in I.A.No.65 of 2008 in O.S.No.146 of 2002. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.M.Duraisamy ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the learned Principal Sub Court, Erode made in I.A.No.65 of 2008 in O.S.No.146 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.65 of 2008 in the suit O.S.No.146 of 2002 to get the exparte decree set aside so as to enable him to contest the suit; whereupon the trial Court allowed the I.A on cost of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such heavy cost, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed this revision on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the sum of Rs.10,000/- imposed as cost payable by the revision petitioner/defendant in favour of the plaintiff is excessive and the Court was not justified in taking into account the previous passing of the ex parte decrees and setting aside of the same. In support of his contention, he would place reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 198 (D.K.Bhaskaran and another vs. Barton Trust, a registered Partnership firm rep.by its partner, Mr.M.A.Chacko, Fair House, Porter Avenue, Coonoor, The Nilgiris and another) and more specifically the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2000 (3) SCC 54 (G.P.Srivastava v. R.K.Raizade and others) referred to therein.
5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would detail and delineate, express and expatiate as to what actually happened in this case. According to him, the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell, which emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant; the suit was decreed exparte twice; the plaintiff also purchased Non judicial stamp papers for getting the sale deeds engrossed; at that juncture, the revision petitioner herein filed the said I.A for the third time for getting the second exparte decree set aside. Hence, the Court thought it fit to award the cost of Rs.10,000/-, which in the facts and circumstances of this case, could not be termed as excessive.
6. When all said and done, considering the pro et contra I am of the considered opinion that there were some laches on the part of the revision petitioner in putting forth his defence before the lower Court and contesting the case; as such the imposition of the cost was warranted.
6. Now the core question arises as to what should be the quantum of the cost. It is a trite proposition of law that the Courts while imposing cost should always bear in mind that it should not be excessive. Here admittedly, the subject matter of the suit was valued in a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and in such a case, I am of the considered opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost was on the higher side and it should be reduced by Rs.5,000/-.
7. Accordingly, the order of the lower court shall stand modified to the effect that the revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent would make an extempore submission that a time frame may be fixed for the disposal of the main suit. I could see considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance.
vj2 22.01.2009 Index :Yes Internet :Yes To The Principal Sub Judge, Erode G.RAJASURIA,J vj2 C.R.P.(PD).3562 of 2008 22.01.2009