Advocates:
SRIKALA GURUKRISHNA KUMARBALAJI SRINIVASAN

Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL

APPEAL

NOS.

4838-4840

OF

2012

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.20349-20351 of 2007]

A. Nawab John & Ors.

….Appellants

Versus

V.N. Subramaniyam

….Respondent

J U

D

G

M

E N

T

Chelameswar,

J.

Leave granted.

2.

The 5 petitioners herein filed O.S.No.100 of 2004,

against one Sengoda Gounder, who is not a party to the Special

Leave Petition, essentially, for the specific performance of a

registered agreement dated 22-03-1995, of sale of the suit

scheduled land admeasuring approximately Acs.2-00 and delivery of

possession of the same; in the alternative, it was prayed that the

defendant be directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,15,125/- with

interest, etc.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

3.

The parties are referred to in this Judgment as they are

arrayed in the abovementioned Suit.

4.

It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the abovementioned

defendant was indebted to one Mr. Radhakrishnan and also to the

Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short

‘TNIIC”). It is alleged in the plaint that Sengoda Gounder wanted to

clear the debts to the abovementioned two persons before the

property is actually conveyed to the plaintiffs. For the said purpose,

Sengoda Gounder collected an amount of Rs.12,15,125/- in

instalments from the plaintiffs. In spite of receipt of such payment,

Sengoda Gounder did not execute the sale deed, on some pretext or

other. Therefore, the Suit.

5.

During the pendency of the Suit, the sole respondent

herein, filed an Application praying that he be impleaded as a party

defendant to the said Suit, on the ground that he purchased the suit

scheduled

property

on

08-03-1999

for

a

consideration

of

Rs.3,93,560/-. It appears from the record that the said I.A. was

allowed and the sole respondent herein was impleaded as the

second defendant in the abovementioned Suit. Consequent upon

the said impleadment, the plaint came to be amended by inserting

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

para 10A, the details of which are not necessary for the present

purpose.

6.

Initially, the Suit was valued at Rs.13,31,663-00 ps. on

which the plaintiff calculated that a court-fee of Rs.99,875-75 ps. is

payable, under Section 42 of The Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits

Valuation Act, 1955” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tamil Nadu Act’

for the sake of convenience). The plaint was presented on 20-08-

1998 with deficit court-fee. Only an amount of Rs.2,000/- was

paid.

The

plaint

was

returned

by

the

Court

on

24-08-1998 with various objections including the deficiency in the

court-fee. The plaintiffs represented (1^st representation) the plaint

after a long delay on 03-05-2002 along with a court-fee of

Rs.96,000/-, with an Application to condone the delay in

representation. On 03-06-2002, the plaint was again returned,

inter alia, on the ground that there still was a deficit of the court-

fee.

Eventually, the plaint was represented on 22-01-2004

(2^nd representation) remitting a further amount of Rs.2,875/- court-

fee along with Applications to condone the delay in representation,

etc. On the same day, the plaint was once again returned with

certain objections. On 09-04-2004, the plaint was once again

represented (3^rd representation) with an application to condone the

delay of 70 days in representation. On 15-04-2004, the Suit was

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

numbered as O.S.No.100 of 2004 by the Court. On 05-10-2004,

Sengoda Gounder was set ex parte. On the same day, however,

the sole respondent herein filed implead-petition in I.A.No.1532 of

2004, which was allowed by an order dated 09-03-2005.

7.

The respondent herein filed C.R.P.(PD) No.658 of 2006,

before the High Court of Madras, challenging the decision of the

Trial Court in I.A.No.76 of 2004 to condone the delay of 1328 days

in the first of the abovemen