Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1193 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2012-03-05

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- M.VENUGOPAL, J., 1. The Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff has focused this Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying permission of this Court to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/-to the credit of Original Suit No.2019 of 2000 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai, as per Judgment dated 22.12.2010. 2. This Court, while allowing the A.S.No.1052 of 2003 (filed by the Respondents/Appellants/Defendants 1 and 2) in part, by Judgment dated 22.12.2010 has, inter alia in paragraphs-40 and 41 has observed hereunder: "40.) The respondent/plaintiff has to fulfil his obligation as the first clause of Ex.A.8, agreement dated 30.01.2000 and therefore, only the appellants/defendants will have to perform their obligation to vacate and deliver the vacant possession, the question of awarding the future damages at Rs.3,300/-(Rupees Three Thousand and Three Hundred only) p.m., from the date of plaint till date of delivery of possession is also illegal and invalid one and accordingly, the Point No.(ii) is answered against the respondent/ plaintiff. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds in part. 41.) In the result, this Appeal Suit is allowed in part, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.2019 of 2000 dated 23.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, are modified. Consequently, the respondent/plaintiff is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) in the name of the second appellant/ second defendant viz., Iswaria in a fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank or in the N.S.C to receive the full amount with interest after a period of eight years as the case may be, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such deposit is being made, the appellants/defendants are directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff with all its fittings and fixtures kept therein, within a period of three months thereafter." 3. In the affidavit in C.M.P.No.499 of 2011 in A.S.No.1052 of 2003 before this Court, the Petitioner/Plaintiff has averred that the Judgment copy in A.S.No.1052 of 2003 has been made ready on 04.03.2011 and it has been received on 08.03.2011 and immediately, he endeavoured to deposit the amount with a Bank or in NSC, the Financial Corporation required the duly filled up and signed form of the 2nd Respondent and other related details etc., and also that he sent the forms by Registered Post to the 2nd Respondent and also, through his sister's daughter, who is an agent of NSC to coordinate with the 2nd Respondent and to obtain the signature so as to enable him to deposit the amount within the time granted by this Court. But, the 2nd Respondent with some ulterior motive has returned the letters and forms sent by him and also, refused to interact with his sister's daughter in this regard, etc. In short, the 2nd Respondent is very adamant in her stand and not willing to co-operate. 4. Furthermore, the Petitioner has been informed by the Banking Corporations and other Financial Institutions that no deposit can be accepted without the signature of the Account Holder in whose name the deposit is to be made, etc. He is seeking a further direction from this Court to deposit the amount of Rs.75,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.2019 of 2000 on the file of the trial Court. 5. When the C.M.P.No.499 of 2011 in A.S.No.1052 of 2003 has come up for hearing before this Court on 28.02.2012, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Appellants/Defendants 1 and 2 has made an endorsement that he has received Rs.(75,000 + 8,020) totaling a sum of Rs.83,020/-by D.D.No.571725 dt.27.2.12 drawn on SBI and the Petitioner/Plaintiff's Learned Counsel has also made an endorsement on 28.02.2012 that he has 'received the key for the suit property'. 6. Recording the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed by this Court, as no further orders are necessary. However, there shall be no order as to costs.