Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2766 (MAD)

M. Krishnaveni v. Muthugajalakshmi

2010-07-08

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.15445 of 2004 in O.S.No.3343 of 1998 , this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: Earlier this court vide order dated 09.06.2010 passed order condoning the delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition and in that the facts are found detailed and delineated. However the operative portion of the said order of this court is reproduced here under for recollection and ready reference: "8. Be that as it may, at present I am not inclined to probe further into the matter in view of the trite proposition of law that if an exparte decree in a specific performance suit is set aside at the instance of one of the joint owners of the suit property, then certainly that benefit should enure to the benefit of other defendants also. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to take a lenient view in condoning the delay, subject to the condition that the petitioners herein shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Respondent No.1 within a period of one week, as otherwise, this petition shall stand dismissed. On compliance with the condition, the Registry is directed to number the CRP." I was informed that the cost also was paid by the revision petitioners in favour of the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would implore and entreat that this court adhering to the ratiocination found set out in the earlier order of this court could allow this CRP as the exparte decree already passed against several defendants once set aside in respect of a defendant that would enure to the benefit of the other defendants also. In fact, in my earlier order dated 09.06.2010, referring to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, I took up the view that the proposition of law was only to the effect as canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As such, the exparte decree passed as against the revision petitioners/defendants should also be set aside. 5. In fact, in my earlier order dated 09.06.2010, referring to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, I took up the view that the proposition of law was only to the effect as canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. As such, the exparte decree passed as against the revision petitioners/defendants should also be set aside. 5. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would pray for awarding an additional cost of Rs.10,000/-as according to her a huge amount was spent in the litigative process and because of the dilatory tactics of the defendants, the plaintiff is put to discomfiture and difficulties. 6. Whereas the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would submit that already as per the order of this court dated 09.06.2010, the present revision petitioners/defendants paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-and as per the previous orders passed by my learned Predecessor dated 21.02.2008 and 28.03.2008 at the instance of third defendant, the plaintiff was in receipt of a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As such, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the plaintiff is now in receipt of totally a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only). Whereas the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff for purchasing the non-judicial stamp paper was only Rs.22,500/-. 7. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that even the plaintiff deposited the remaining part of the sale consideration in court and that also is kept in idle without fetching any interest. 8. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the view that the revision could be allowed by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.15445 of 2004. Accordingly, this revision is allowed subject to the condition that the revision petitioners/defendants pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the first respondent/plaintiff within one week from today. If there is no such payment, then this order will not enure to the benefit of the revision petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would make an extempore submission to the effect that a time frame may be fixed for early disposal. 10. I could see considerable force in her submission. Accordingly, on complying with this order by the revision petitioners/defendants, the lower court shall see to it that the suit itself is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. 10. I could see considerable force in her submission. Accordingly, on complying with this order by the revision petitioners/defendants, the lower court shall see to it that the suit itself is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.