Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1927 (MAD)

Athianna Gounder v. Marappa Gounder

2013-06-06

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order made in I.A.No.160/2013 in O.S.No.152/2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. was allowed on terms to deposit a sum of Rs.1,500/-. The said condition imposed by the court below is challenged before this Court in this civil revision petition by contending that even though the petitioners as defendants have already filed written statement there is no justification on the part of the trial court in awarding cost of Rs.1,500/-. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials placed before me. 3. It is seen from the entries made in B-Diary that the court below has noted on 24.01.2013 that additional written statement and written statement were not filed by the defendants and they were also called absent. It is also found by the court below that there is no representation on behalf of them. Therefore, they were set exparte. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners before this court submits that in fact the defendants had already filed the written statement which fact was already recorded by the court below by entry dated 15.12.2011 found in the B-Diary itself wherein it is stated that written statement of D2 adopted by D1, D3, D4 and D5 filed and memo adopting written statement of D2. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the fact remains that the written statement of the defendants was already filed before the court below, imposing cost of Rs.1,500/- while allowing the application is not warranted. 5. It is true that the defendants have already filed the written statement but that was not the only reason for setting them exparte. On the other hand, perusal of the entries made on 24.01.2013 in B-Diary shows that they were also absent before the court below and there was no representation on behalf of them on that day. 6. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the court below allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. however by imposing cost of Rs.1,500/-. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below, in view of the fact that the application filed by the petitioners was only allowed on terms. 7. 6. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the court below allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. however by imposing cost of Rs.1,500/-. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below, in view of the fact that the application filed by the petitioners was only allowed on terms. 7. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already deposited the cost within the time stipulated by the court below. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the civil revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested that the suit may be directed to be disposed of within a timeframe. The suit is of the year 2010, filed for declaration and other reliefs. Since the parties said to have completed the pleadings, the court below is directed to take up the suit and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.