Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Ashutosh Shil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Subhashi Shil – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the review petition. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's financial hardship and argument for reduced cost. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's lenient modification of the cost. (Para 5) |
| 4. final decision to allow the review petition. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.
2. This review petition is filed by the review petitioner under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.01.2023 passed by this Court in CRP No.92 of 2022 to reduce the cost amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.
3. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the review petitioner-defendant had filed a petition being CRP No.92 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court for quashing the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in T.S. case No.30 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, South Tripura, Belonia. While adjudicating the matter, this Court considered the grievances of the petitioner and allowed the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 and remanded the matter back to the Court below giving an opport
The court may review and modify imposed costs based on the petitioner's financial circumstances and justice considerations.
Court reduced imposed costs from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.10,000 considering petitioner's financial difficulty despite no merit in review.
The court established that costs imposed by a Tribunal can be reviewed and set aside if compliance with the Tribunal's orders is demonstrated and the affected party does not insist on the payment.
The court upheld that grounds for review not previously raised do not warrant revisiting of a judgment.
Acceptance of costs under protest creates estoppel, preventing the accepting party from subsequently challenging the correctness of the order associated with those costs.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record; issues requiring reasoning do not constitute grounds for review.
The court has the discretion to modify the quantum of costs imposed in a civil suit based on the proportionality with the claims sought and the circumstances leading to the delay in producing documen....
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
