Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Stephenraj
Versus
Sankari & Another
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.502 to 504 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 19-02-2009
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - Interlocutory Applications - Deposit of Decree Amount - Opportunity for Defendants to Defend Suit
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed interlocutory applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking extension of time to deposit 50% of the decree amount. The trial Judge had directed the defendants to deposit the amount and dismissed the petition for extension of time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that directing the defendants to deposit 50% of the decree amount in a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC requires interference. It held that the defendants should be given an opportunity to defend the suit by paying a cost of Rs.1000 in each application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Judge's order directing the defendants to deposit 50% of the decree amount was appropriate in the context of the defendants' defense raised in their written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the defendants' defense should be determined at the time of trial and that the defendants should be given an opportunity to defend the suit by paying a cost of Rs.1000 in each application.
Final Decision: The civil revision petitions were allowed, and the orders passed in the interlocutory applications were modified. The defendants were allowed to defend the suit on the condition of paying a sum of Rs.1000 in each application, and the trial Judge was directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
COMMON ORDER
The orders passed in I.A.No.175 of 2006 in O.S.No.1 of 2006, I.A.No.176 of 2006 in O.S.No.2 of 2006 and I.A.No.177 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ranipet are challenged under these revisions.
2. The above said interlocutory applications were filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In the said applications, the learned trial Judge has directed the petitioners/defendants to deposit 50% of the decree amount on or before 9. 2008. The petition filed by the revision petitioners/defendants for extension of time to comply with the said orders was also dismissed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
4. I am of the view that in a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, directing the revision petitioners/defendants to deposit 50% of the decree amount requires interference. The defendants have raised defence in their written statement. Whether it is valid or not is a matter to be gone into only at the time of trial. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the defendants to defend the suit but by paying a cost of Rs.1000/- in each application referred to above.
5. In fine, these civil revision petitions are allowed and the orders passed in I.A.No.175 of 2006 in O.S.No.1 of 2006, I.A.No.176 of 2006 in O.S.No.2 of 2006 and I.A.No.177 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ranipet respectively are modified as to the effect that those applications will be allowed on condition, the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1000(Rupees One thousand )Only in each applications towards cost to the other side to be paid on or before 13. 2009 failing which these revisions shall deem to have been dismissed. On compliance of the above order, the learned trial Judge shall restore O.S.Nos 1 to 3 of 2006 on his file and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
