Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. Subbiah, C. Saravanan, JJ.
Enkay Visions (P) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Doordarshan and Ors. - Respondent
Original Side Appeal No. 25 of 2019
Decided On : 25-09-2020
For the Appellant : V. Srikanth
For the Respondent: R. Sankara Narayanan, Addl. Solicitor General assisted by T.L. Thirumalaisamy, CGSC
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 34 - Plaintiff will be entitled to payment of interest - Relief of recovery of money from the respondents/defendants towards the production cost of tele-serial and for damages - Whether any decision is a judgment within meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent each case must be looked into in order to find out as to - Whether there is a decision determining the right or liability of parties affecting merits of the controversy between the parties - Whether an individual or a legal entity, remains the defendant but only the name is altered, it would be a case of mis-description - Whether the contentions are right - Whether the order is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent it has to be found out that order affects the merits of the action between the parties by determining some right or liability - Whether there has been a determination of any right or liability - Whether order sought to be appealed against is a judgment within the meaning thereof or not - whether interlocutory or final - whether the nature of the order appealed against is final or interlocutory - Whether or not, order or judgment has finally decided rights of the parties - Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. against the order passed by learned Single Judge in Application No. in C.S. No. filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules of this Court -. plaintiff filed Execution Petition No. for executing the decree before Court, which was subsequently transmitted to jurisdictional Court at Delhi - respondents/defendants filed applications being Application Nos. before this Court - Application No. was filed for condoning delay of 1600 days in representing the application to set aside ex-parte decree and Application No. was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree respondents/defendants have also filed yet another application in Application – Held, appellant/plaintiff. While so, the respondents/defendants cannot be heard to contend that application for amendment has been filed belatedly and therefore, it need not be entertained. When the respondents/defendants caused the delay in either contesting the suit or filing the written statement, it is futile on the part of the respondents/defendants to contend that the plaintiff has delayed the suit proceedings. In a suit for recovery of money, a plaintiff will always venture to and look upon the Court to conclude the proceedings at the earliest and to get back his money and there may not be any occasion for a plaintiff in such a suit to cause delay. In any event, as mentioned above, the delay in the present case, is largely attributable on the part of the respondents/defendants, because of whose failure, the suit proceedings could not be concluded and kept pending from 12.02.2008, the date on which the ex-parte decree was passed till the suit was restored at the instance of the respondents/defendants on 09.09.2016. Therefore, the question of delay on the part of the appellant/plaintiff in seeking amendment of the pleadings in the plaint, will not arise in this case – Appeal is dispose
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 17 of 2006 against the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No. 601 of 2017 in C.S. No. 17 of 2006, filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), since the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2017 only insofar as it restricts the date from which the plaintiff will be entitled to payment of interest. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is re-produced hereunder.
"3. .....However, the Court is also to keep in mind the fact that this amendment is made pending the suit and consequently, if at all, the issue of interest is to be decided, the Court must keep in mind that the plaintiff has actually sought interest from the date of filing the amendment application and the amendment application has been allowed only on this date, namely, 28.08.2017.
4. With such observations, this application is allowed. Plaintiff is directed to carry out the amendment and file amended plaint copy on 13.09.2017."
2. The appellant herein, as Plaintiff, has filed the aforesaid suit in C.S. No. 17 of 2006 before this Court. The suit was instituted for the relief of recovery of money from the respondents/defendants towards the production cost of tele-serial and for damages. For the purpose of adjudication of this appeal, the plaint averments are not necessary. What is required to be looked into is the prayer sought for in the plaint, which is extracted hereunder:-
"15. The Plaintiff therefore prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants;
(a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- along with interest from the date of decree till the date of realisation
(b) directing the defendant to pay cost; and
(c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
3. The aforesaid suit was filed on 07.09.2005, but numbered only in the year 2006. The summons in the suit were served on the respondents/defendants on 10.02.2006. Since the defendants in the suit did not contest the suit, an ex-parte decree was passed on 12.02.2008. Armed with the ex-parte decree passed in the suit, the appellant/plaintiff demanded the decretal amount from the respondents/defendants on 08.11.2010, but there was no response. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition No. 478 of 2015 for executing the decree before this Court, which was subsequently transmitted to the jurisdictional Court at Delhi.
4. At this stage, the respondents/defendants filed applications being Application Nos. 1856 and 1857 of 2016 before this Court. Application No. 1856 of 2016 was filed for condoning the delay of 1600 days in representing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and Application No. 1857 of 2016 was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.02.2008. The respondents/defendants have also filed yet another application in Application No. 2279 of 2016 for condoning the delay of 3650 days in filing the written statement in the suit. After the applications in A. Nos. 1856 and 1857 of 2016 were allowed, Application No. 2279 of 2016 was allowed on 19.07.2016 and the delay was condoned on condition that the respondents/defendants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs being a portion of the suit claim and further to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2016 in Application No. 2279 of 2016 condoning the delay of 3650 days in filing the written statement, the appellant/plaintiff has filed O.S.A. No. 191 of 2016 before this Court. By judgment dated 08.09.2016, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal with the following observations:-
"On hearing the learned counsel for parties, it is agreed that the appeal ca
