Madras High Court
Francis Cedric D Cruz vs Madras Kerala Samaj Building ... on 27 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
O.S.A.No.303 of 2021
Francis Cedric D Cruz ..Appellant
Vs
1.Madras Kerala Samaj Building Trust
rep. By its Chairman P.Rajendran and
Secretary K.C.Sankunni,
Having Office at No.903,
Poonamallee High Road, Madras – 84.
2.P.Rajendran, Chairman,
Madras Kerala Samaj Building Trust
3.K.C.Sankunni, Secretary,
Madras Kerala Samaj Building Trust
4.M.K.A.Azeez
5.P.Chandrasekaran Nair
6.K.Mathew
7.Kumblangad Unnikrishnan
8.P.K.Balakrishnan
9.T.Anandan
10.N.Sreedharan
11.T.P.Aravindan
12.M.Sivadasan Pillai
13.K.Krishnan
14.P.K.Nafeesa Beevi
15.Saleema Basheer
16.S.Sajena Mansoor Ali ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
Appeal preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of O.S. Rules r/w
Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 11.04.2019 made
in O.P.No.745 of 2017 and Application No.1178 of 2019.
For Appellant .. Mr.R.Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
The grievance of the present appellant is against para 3 of the
judgment of learned single Judge dated 11 April 2019 in O.P.No.745
of 2017 and Application No.1178 of 2019. The said para reads as
under:
“3.The Advocate Commissioner has been paid with a
sum of Rs.30,000/- as initial remuneration. Considering
the enormous time involved in the work and the efforts
taken by the Advocate Commissioner, the Trust is directed
to pay a further sum of Rs.2,70,000/- to the Advocate
Commissioner. The additional remuneration shall be paid
by 30.04.2019.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.The grievance voiced (as reflected in the memo of appeal)
reads as under:
“The appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to set aside paragraph No.3 of the
order and decretal order made in O.P.No.745/2017 and
Application No.1178/2019 dated 11.04.2019 and enhance
the remuneration payable to the appellant strictly in
consonance with the rules of the High Court Original Side
Rules Appendix I Rule 28 of the O.S. Rules and thus
render justice.”
3.The principal controversy in the suit was between the plaintiffs
and the defendants, which is not the subject matter of this appeal.
Limited grievance in the present appeal is by the Advocate
Commissioner. It is to the effect that, though the initial payment of
Rs.30,000/- was enhanced due to Rs.3 lakhs, more amount ought to
have been ordered by learned single Judge. Para 3 of the order
therefore is sought to be set aside. The said para itself indicates that,
learned single Judge was conscious of the efforts put in by the
Advocate Commissioner and the same is taken care of by ordering
further amount of Rs.2,70,000/- totalling to Rs.3 lakhs. The discretion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
exercised by learned single Judge in favour of the Advocate
Commissioner, in our view, in the facts like this, cannot be the subject
matter of an intra-court appeal.
4. It is noted that the learned advocate for the appellant has
referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of B. Soundarapandian vs Industrial Finance Corporation (AIR
1982 Mad 206), which in our view would not take the case of the
appellant any further in the facts of the case. We find that no
interference would be required in the impugned order. If at all the
appellant has any grievance, liberty is reserved to him to move learned
single Judge for appropriate further order, if he so desires.
5. The original side appeal is disposed of. No costs.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
27.10.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/4
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
O.S.A.No.303 of 2021
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
