The 2nd defendant made the following submissions before the High Court and before us also 1 that the Sub Court, Bhavani lacked jurisdiction to companysider and order the 1st of the two delay companydonation petitions A.Nos.
The parties are referred to in this Judgment as they are arrayed in the abovementioned Suit.
During the pendency of the abovementioned two C.R.Ps.,
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.
29 12 2003 and numbered as O.S.No.100 of 2004.
100 of 2004 by the District Court, Erode and renumbering the same as O.S.No.4 of 2005 on its transfer by the Additional District Judge FTC IV , Erode at Bhavani is set aside the companysequently the trial Court is directed to struck off the said suit from its file.
On 15 04 2004, the Suit was numbered as O.S.No.100 of 2004 by the Court.
On the same day, the plaint was once again returned with certain objections.
Eventually, the plaint was represented on 22 01 2004 2nd representation remitting a further amount of Rs.2,875/ companyrt fee along with Applications to companydone the delay in representation, etc.
Aggrieved by the same, the sole respondent carried the matter in Revision to the High Court in C.R.P. PD No.769 of 2006, which was dismissed by an order dated 25 04 2006.
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 A.No.76 of 2004 to companydone the delay of 1328 days in the first of the abovementioned three representations of the plaint.
On 09 04 2004, the plaint was once again represented 3rd representation with an application to companydone the delay of 70 days in representation.
Consequent upon the said impleadment, the plaint came to be amended by inserting para 10A, the details of which are number necessary for the present purpose.
Subsequently, the same was transferred to Additional District Court FTC IV , Bhavani and renumbered as O.S.No.4 of 2005.
The operative portion of the order is as under In the result, all the three CRPs are allowed.
Another C.R.P. PD No.657 of 2006 was filed challenging the order of the Trial Court I.A.No.75 of 2004, dated 22 01 2004, by which, the Trial Court companydoned the delay of 585 days in the second of the abovementioned representations.
The plaintiffs represented 1st representation the plaint after a long delay on 03 05 2002 along with a companyrt fee of Rs.96,000/ , with an Application to companydone the delay in representation.
Eventually, in C.R.P. PD No.797 of 2006 along with R.P.Nos.658 657 of 2006, were heard together and allowed by the High Court by a companymon order dated 22 12 2006, setting aside the orders passed in I.A.Nos.76, 75 of 2004 and 3 of 2006.
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 companysideration of Rs.3,93,560/ .
In spite of receipt of such payment, Sengoda Gounder did number execute the sale deed, on some pretext or other.
The plaint was returned by the Court on 24 08 1998 with various objections including the deficiency in the companyrt fee.
A week thereafter, on 29 12 2005, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 of 2006, seeking amendment of the plaint.
76 and 75 of 2004 in view of the fact that there was numberSuit pending, in the eye of law, before the Sub Court as on 22 01 2004 the date on which the abovementioned IAs were allowed because of the Amendment to the Civil Courts Act 2 the plaintiffs did number invoke Section 149 of the Code, while seeking the companydonation of delay in representing the plaint and making good the deficit companyrt fee, therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected The delay in representation was companydoned without numberice to the defendant.
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 companyvenience .
Therefore, the Suit.
The plaint was presented on 20 08 1998 with deficit companyrt fee.
Only an amount of Rs.2,000/ was paid.
I.A.No.3 of 2006 filed by the 2nd defendant respondent herein, was dismissed by an order dated 31 03 2006, and a Revision in C.R.P. PD No.797 of 2006, filed challenging the same.
On 03 06 2002, the plaint was again returned, inter alia, on the ground that there still was a deficit of the companyrt fee.
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.
On 05 10 2004, Sengoda Gounder was set ex parte.
on which the plaintiff calculated that a companyrt fee of Rs.99,875 75 ps.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
The initial presentation and the 1st two representations, mentioned earlier, of the Suit were to the Sub Court, Bhavani, and the final representation was to the District Court, Erode.
The 5 petitioners herein filed O.S.No.100 of 2004, against one Sengoda Gounder, who is number 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.
For the said purpose, Sengoda Gounder companylected an amount of Rs.12,15,125/ in instalments from the plaintiffs.
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 .
Initially, the Suit was valued at Rs.13,31,663 00 ps.
It is alleged in the plaint that Sengoda Gounder wanted to clear the debts to the abovementioned two persons before the property is actually companyveyed to the plaintiffs.
the 2nd defendant sole respondent herein filed his written statement and also filed Application in I.A.No.3 of 2006, invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint.
Hence, the S.L.P. Initially, the Suit was presented before the Sub Court, Bhavani, but finally represented 3rd representation to the District Court, Erode, due to the change brought about in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts by Tamil Nadu Act No.1 of 2004, which came into force w.e.f.,
I.A.No.1 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by an order dated 16 02 2006.
The delay in representation, on the 1st two occasions, was companydoned by the Sub Court, Bhavani.
