Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 585 (MAD)

M. Nazar v. Kasara Beevi

2013-01-28

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.09.2012 passed in I.A.No.199 of 2012 in O.S.No.155 of 2009 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.155 of 2009 seeking the following relief: "(a) Declaring that the schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and defendant No.6 and for directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff and defendant No.6. (b) for past mesne profits from the schedule property from defendants 1 to 5 from 1.6.2009 at the of Rs.1,300/- per month for the upstairs portion and ground floor of the schedule property totally Rs.15,600/- and future mesne profits at the above rate of Rs.1,300/- per month." (extracted as such) Initially, one application was filed and he got the plaint amended for the first time in respect of certain discrepancies in the schedule of the properties. Subsequently, one other application in I.A.No.199 of 2012 was filed seeking the following amendment: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass an order to amend the plaint as per the particulars of amendment hereunder and thus render justice.; Particulars of Amendment “TAMIL” (extracted as such) After hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the second application for amendment also subject to the condition that the plaintiff should pay each of the revision petitioners 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3, a sum of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only). 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? 6. A mere running of the eye over the case records would reveal that the plaintiff has The Point: filed the suit for the main purpose of getting declared that the superstructure found described in the schedule of the property, belonged to the plaintiff and the sixth defendant and for obtaining the delivery of possession of the said superstructure. 7. 6. A mere running of the eye over the case records would reveal that the plaintiff has The Point: filed the suit for the main purpose of getting declared that the superstructure found described in the schedule of the property, belonged to the plaintiff and the sixth defendant and for obtaining the delivery of possession of the said superstructure. 7. It is the categorical case of the plaintiff that the land on which the superstructure stands, does not belong to him. However, in the schedule of the property, that fact has not been clearly spelt out and with that intention only, the two applications emerged. When such is the factual scenario, I could see no illegality in the order of the lower Court. However, even at the time of filing the suit itself, the plaintiff should have been diligent enough in furnishing the correct schedule of the properties. 8. In a bid to get rectified such error alone, he got the amendment allowed relating to which no interference is warranted. However, the cost awarded by the lower Court, in my opinion, is meagre. 9. Wherefore, the cost of Rs.200/-(Rupees Two Hundred only) awarded in favour of each of the revision petitioners 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 shall stand enhanced to Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) each in favour of them. As such, the total cost would stand increased from Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred only) to Rs.1,200/- (Rupees One Thousand and Two Hundred only) which shall be paid within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The point is answered accordingly. 10. It is also to be observed that the lower Court awarded a cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) in favour of each of the defendants 1 to 5, but the defendants 1 to 3 alone preferred this Civil Revision Petition and hence, the cost is enhanced as above, only in favour of the defendants 1 to 3. 11. On balance, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.