B.Kutti Alias Krishna v. R.Sathya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 5234 of 2025 and CMP No.26354 of 2025

1. B.Kutti Alias Krishna S/o M.V.Balan, No.6/26, 4th Bharathiyar Street, Lakshmipuram, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. R.Sathya W/o S.Raju, No.14, Ponnambalam Vathiyar Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside order dated 16.10.2025 passed in IA.No.3 of 2025 in OS.No.5480 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in respect of Portion of the Conditional order to pay Cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to District Legal Service Authority, Chennai alone.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. K.Lavan

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the costs imposed by the court below, while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner to receive the documents.

2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner/defendant filed written statement on 06.01.2023. After two years, the present application has been filed seeking to receive certain documents, which have not been filed along with the written statement. The court below, taking lenient view of the matter, allowed the application filed by the petitioner, however, by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the District Legal Aid Services Authority, on or before 23.1.2025. Aggrieved by the cost imposed by the court below, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the costs imposed by the Trial Court is very excessive and therefore, the same shall be reduced.

4. There is a long delay of 2 years on the part of the petitioner in filing the application to receive additional documents, which were not filed along with the written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner has not given any satisfactory reason, except to say, the documents

were not filed along with written statement, due to inadvertence. The court below, taking into consideration the vague allegation in the affidavit and also in the interest of justice, allowed the application, however, imposed cost. I do not find any error in the order passed by the court below.

5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order passed by the Court below. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes MST To

1. The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai-104.

S.SOUNTHAR J.

MST CRP No. 5234 of 2025 28-10-2025