TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Payment of costs for fresh suit can be made within reasonable time</h1> <h3>KONKAN TRADING COMPANY Versus SURESH GOVIND KAMAT TARKAR & ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court clarified that under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the requirement to pay costs before filing a fresh suit can be met by ... - Issues:- Interpretation of the requirement to pay costs before filing a fresh suit under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.- Validity of the suit based on the timing of payment of costs as per the court order.- Reversal of trial court's decision by the High Court in a revision petition.- Application of the principle of access to justice and liberal interpretation of procedural requirements.Analysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court involved a dispute regarding the timing of payment of costs in a civil suit. The appellant firm had initially filed a suit against the respondents but had not been registered under the Indian Partnership Act, making the suit liable to fail. The appellant sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, which was granted by the court on payment of costs of Rs. 100. Subsequently, the appellant filed a new suit but failed to pay the costs before filing it. The trial court allowed the appellant to deposit the costs and deemed the suit maintainable. However, the High Court, in a revision petition, held the suit void ab initio due to non-payment of costs before institution.The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allow a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on certain terms, including payment of costs. The Court emphasized that the requirement to pay costs can be fulfilled by depositing the amount within a reasonable time before the second suit is filed. The Court overruled contrary views by various High Courts and highlighted the importance of promoting access to justice and upholding legal rights.In the specific case, the Supreme Court noted that the order granting permission to withdraw the initial suit did not explicitly state that costs had to be paid as a condition precedent before filing the fresh suit. The Court criticized a hyper-technical interpretation that would deny access to justice and legal rights. The trial court's decision to allow the deposit of costs was deemed just, while the High Court's reversal was seen as unjust. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the trial court's order to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of a liberal interpretation of procedural requirements to serve the ends of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
