Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2956
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mahendra Dayal, J.
Shanti Ojha - Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corp.Ltd.Thru General Manager And Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 122 of 2015
Decided On : 27-10-2015
For the Petitioner: Shailesh Kumar Pathak.
Delay in taking any step after the initial allowance of a commission application can lead to rejection of the application and imposition of costs.
Headnote:
Delay - Execution of Commission - The court rejected the application for execution of commission under Section 151 C.P.C. due to delay of fifteen years in taking any step after the initial allowance of the commission application in 1999, imposing a cost of Rs.2,500 on the revisionist.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist moved an application for execution of commission under Section 151 C.P.C. after a delay of fifteen years from the initial allowance of the commission application in 1999. The court found the revisionist to be delaying the proceedings and imposed a cost of Rs.2,500.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or perversity in the order impugned and dismissed the revision for being devoid of merit. The court set aside the excessive cost of Rs.2,500 imposed on the revisionist.
Issues: Delay in execution of commission application, imposition of cost on the revisionist.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the application for execution of commission due to the revisionist's delay of fifteen years in taking any step after the initial allowance of the commission application in 1999, deeming it as a delay tactic.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the excessive cost of Rs.2,500 imposed on the revisionist was set aside.
Mahendra Dayal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the impugned order.
2. The revisionist has assailed the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No.302 of 1998, whereby the application of the revisionist moved under Section 151 C.P.C. for execution of commission has been rejected with a cost of Rs.2,500/-.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that an application for issue of commission was moved by the revisionist in the year 1999 which was allowed in the year 1999 itself but for a period of more than fifteen years the commission was not issued. When at the stage of evidence it was found that the issue of commission and inspection of the disputed site is necessary, the revisionists moved this application under Section 151 C.P.C. for execution of the commission which was moved earlier in the year 1999 which was rejected by the court below by means of the order impugned in this revision.
4. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned court below has found that the application for issue of commission was disposed of in the year 1999, but for a period of fifteen years, the revisionists did not take any step and when the case was at the fag end the revisionist moved an application for implementation of the order, which was passed fifteen years back in the year 1999. In the opinion of Court, the revisionist was only delaying the proceedings of the case and as such a cost of Rs.2,500/- was also imposed on him.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and having perused the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned and as such the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. However, in the opinion of this Court the order imposing the cost of RS.2,500/- seems excessive and as such only that part of the order by which the cost was imposed, is set aside.
