Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Pichammal Wife Of Chinnaiyan And ... vs Annamalai Son Of Chinnaiyan And ... on 20 November, 2007

P.S.San Basha vs N.Govindan on 28 March, 2011

In Pichammal vs. Annamalai, reported in 2008 (1) CTC 47, this Court (M.VENUGOPAL, J) has held that Interlocutory Application filed under Section 148 CPC, praying for extension of time in regard to the payment of costs filed before the trial court on 28.02.2003 by the revision petitioner therein, after the expiry of the dead line for payment of costs expired on 27.02.2003, was held in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association's case and by this Court in Gowri Ammal's case, wherein it was held that the trial court has power to extend time for payment of costs and the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the Court has become functus officio is not sustainable. It is a settled proposition of law that the Court below has power to extend the time for making payment, however, it is only a judicial discretion.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

T.Vasantha vs K.Mangalakshmi on 26 February, 2024

Learned counsel for the first defendant 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.362, 364 and 353 of 2024 would place reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide Pichammal and another versus Annamalai and another reported in 2008 (1) CTC 47. In that case, a suit was dismissed for default on 31.10.2002. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 28 days in filing Order IX Rule 9 application was filed and allowed subject to payment of cost to be paid on 27.02.2003. The said IA was closed for non-compliance on 28.02.2003. Thereafter the petitioner therein sought extension of time under Section 148 of CPC to pay the costs which was dismissed. On challenging the said order the High Court held that the Court did not become funtus officio and based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court it directed the trial court to restore the application to decide on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Sivagnanam - Full Document

T.Vasantha vs K.Mangalakshmi on 26 February, 2024

Learned counsel for the first defendant 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.362, 364 and 353 of 2024 would place reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide Pichammal and another versus Annamalai and another reported in 2008 (1) CTC 47. In that case, a suit was dismissed for default on 31.10.2002. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 28 days in filing Order IX Rule 9 application was filed and allowed subject to payment of cost to be paid on 27.02.2003. The said IA was closed for non-compliance on 28.02.2003. Thereafter the petitioner therein sought extension of time under Section 148 of CPC to pay the costs which was dismissed. On challenging the said order the High Court held that the Court did not become funtus officio and based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court it directed the trial court to restore the application to decide on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Sivagnanam - Full Document

A.I.Singh vs Squash Rackets Federation Of India on 26 November, 2008

Another decision in Pichammal and another V. Annamalai and another 2008 (1) CTC 47 has been pressed into service on the side of revision petitioner to the effect that 'extension of time for payment of cost beyond maximum period of 30 days can be permitted by Court if act was not performed within 30 days for reasons beyond control of party and that the trial Court does not become functus officio and it has power to extend time for payment of cost. She also brought the attention of this Court to the decision in C.R.P.(NPD).No.82 of 2007 dated 06.02.2007 to the effect that 'Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code confers ample discretionary powers on Courts regarding enlargement of time and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to seek necessary Order for ends of justice. Therefore, non-filing of application under Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code before lower Court by itself need not be an impediment in showing indulgence to the petitioner.'
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

A.P.Subramanian vs R.Sivasamy on 4 August, 2008

5. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / plaintiff, under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, extension of time for payment of cost beyond the prescribed maximum period can be permitted by court, if the act was not performed within the specified period, for reasons beyond the control of party. In such circumstances, the court does not become functus officio and it has power to extend time for making such a payment. This Court has also decided the same in the decision in Pichammal vs. Annamalai reported in 2008 (1) CTC 47.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

J.Saroja vs The Special District Revenue Officer ... on 13 March, 2025

8. The above decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Gowri Ammal vs. Murugan and others reported in 2006 (3) CTC 418 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 11:12:15 am ) C.R.P.No.1021 of 2025 and subsequently, followed by the single Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 47 (Pichammal and another vs. Annamalai and another ) and in 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 419 (Ramasamy (Died) Amirthalingam and Another vs. Banumathi and others), wherein, this Court held that the court has got power to entertain the application filed under Section 148 & 151 CPC to consider the merits of the matter for condoning the delay or for extending the time.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document
1