Madras High Court
S.Kasthuri vs M/S. Vinoth Foundation on 21 October, 2024
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
A.S.No.697 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
A.S.No.697 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.22506 of 2024
S.Kasthuri ..Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s. Vinoth Foundation,
rep. by its Director,
S.Anusuya
W/o S.Swaminathan,
at Unit-1, No.7, Periyar Nagar 2nd Street,
Urapakkam, Chengalpet Taluk,
Kancheepuram District - 603 210.
Sabiya (died),
D/o P.M.Abuul Kadhar ..Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C
against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2024 made in O.S.No.278
of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge,
Chengelpattu.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 7
A.S.No.697 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.Muralikumaran,
Senior Counsel for
M/s. Mcgan Law Firm
For Respondent : Mr.S.M.Sridhar
******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court made by Mrs.J.Nisha Banu,J.)
The present Appeal is filed by the 1st defendant in the suit, in
O.S.No.278 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Judge,
Chengalpattu against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.06.2024.
2. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff against the
appellant herein and the 2nd respondent, who were arrayed as the
defendants 1 and 2 respectively, for recovery of the advance amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant, in pursuant to an
Agreement of Sale dated 06.11.2014 along with an interest of
Rs.9,00,000/- till the date of the suit together with 18% interest per
annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
3. The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant among other
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contentions, that the said advance amount was repaid and the same is also
evidenced by exhibit B2.
4. The Trial Court, after adjourning the case on 27.04.2023 to
28.04.2023 for perusal of written arguments and judgment, it is seen that
on 28.04.2023, the case was reposted to 13.06.2023 with an adjudication
"Judgment not ready call on 13.06.2023". Thereafter, the matter was
reposted on various dates and the Judgment and Decree came to be
passed on 20.06.2024, passing the Decree in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Though, the appellant has raised various grounds challenging
the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, including that of the
delay in delivery of the Judgment, this Court without going into the
merits of the contentions raised by the appellant, deems it appropriate to
set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree and remand back the matter
on the ground that the Trial Court, after having reserved the matter and
posted the same for Judgment has delivered the Judgement, after a period
of approximately 14 months. Such delay in delivering the Judgment, after
reserving, is against the proviso to Order 20 Rule 1 of CPC, which
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mandates delivery of Judgment within 60 days from the date of
conclusion of hearing.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently deprecated such
practise, in various Judgments. In the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2001 7 SCC 318, which was followed in Balaji Balram
Mupade and anr vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported 2021 12
SCC 603 and Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 461, their Lordships cited the observations in the case of
Bhagwandas Fatechanci Daswani & Ors vs Hpa International And Ors
reported in AIR 2000 SC 775 which held that long delay in delivery of
judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculation in the minds of the parties
to a case. In the said Judgment, their Lordships also took notice of the
observations of the Arrears Committee constituted by the Government of
India.
"...7. Adverse effect of the problem of not
pronouncing the reserved judgments within a
reasonable time was considered by the Arrears
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Committee constituted by the Government of India on
the recommendation of the Chief Justices' Conference.
In its report of 1989-90, Chapter VIII, the Committee
recommended that reserved judgments should
ordinarily be pronounced within a period of six weeks
from the date of conclusion of the arguments. If,
however, a reserved judgment is not pronounced for a
period of three months from the date of the conclusion
of the arguments, the Chief Justice was recommended
to be authorised to either post the case for delivering
judgment in open court or withdraw the case and post
it for disposal before an appropriate Bench."
7. Therefore, we are setting aside the judgment and decree
impugned herein and the matter is remitted back to the file of the District
Judge, Chengalpattu for fresh disposal from the stage of arguments. The
District Judge, Chengalpattu is directed to dispose of the same, after
hearing both the parties, within a period of six(06) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and the parties are directed to extend
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
their complete cooperation by not taking any adjournment. No further
notice will be given to the parties and the parties are directed to appear
before the District Judge, Chengalpattu on 11.11.24 for making their
submissions.
(J.N.B,J.) (R.K.M., J.)
Index : Yes / No 21.10.2024
Internet : Yes
vsi
Note: Issue order copy on 30.10.2024.
To:
The Additional District Judge
Chengalpattu.
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.KALAIMATHI,J.
vsi
21.10.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
