After Repeatedly Missing Court-Ordered Costs, Madras HC Gives Plaintiff 10 Days To Pay ₹7,500 For One Last Chance To Reopen Evidence

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 3545 of 2016, sought permanent and mandatory injunctions, recovery of possession and declaration.

After PW1 failed to appear for cross-examination, his evidence was closed.

The plaintiff’s application to reopen the evidence was dismissed for default; an application to restore it was allowed subject to payment of costs, which were not paid in time.

The trial court later extended time on a further application, subject to payment of Rs. 3,000 to the District Legal Services Authority by 9 July 2024.

When that condition was also not met, the plaintiff sought a further extension; the trial court refused to entertain the application.

The plaintiff challenged that refusal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court considered whether to interfere with the trial court’s order.

The judgment cites no statute beyond Article 227 and no precedent.

In disposing of the petition, the Court exercised its supervisory discretion to grant a final opportunity on terms, taking account of the nature of the relief sought and the earlier counsel’s failure to follow up the matter.

The Court found that the plaintiff had been persistently slack in prosecuting the suit and that the proceedings had made no progress from 2023 because of his conduct.

He had failed to comply with successive costs conditions, including the Rs. 3,000 condition imposed when time was extended.

Although the Court was not inclined to entertain the revision, it considered the nature of the relief sought and the submission that the earlier counsel had not properly followed up the case.

It therefore granted one final opportunity, subject to payment of Rs. 7,500 within the prescribed period.

The plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 7,500 to the credit of the suit within 10 days of receiving a copy of the order.

If paid in time, the trial court was to permit the plaintiff to reopen PW1’s evidence and proceed according to law.

If not, the trial court’s order dated 3 July 2024 dismissing I.A. No. 5 of 2024 would stand confirmed.

The connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.