Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Jayant s/o Ganpatrao Buty, was the original plaintiff who filed a suit for recovery of possession of an open piece of land against the non-applicants (defendants). The suit was decreed on 19/12/2014. The defendants appealed, claiming they did not have proper opportunity to defend. The appellate court allowed the appeal on 04/10/2017, subject to payment of costs of Rs.4000/- by the defendants to the plaintiff within two weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The parties were to appear before the trial court on 26/10/2017 for fresh adjudication. On 12/10/2017, the defendants filed an application (Exhibit 36) seeking permission to deposit the costs in court, which was allowed on the same day, and the amount was deposited. On 24/10/2017, the plaintiff filed a pursis stating that the conditional order was not complied with as costs were not paid directly to him, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The appellate court held that the costs were already deposited as per the application. The plaintiff filed a civil revision under Section 115 CPC challenging the order permitting deposit. The High Court examined the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1(1) CPC, which specifies modes of paying money under a decree, including payment into court. The court noted that the appellate court's order required payment of costs, but did not specify the mode. The defendants deposited the costs in court within the stipulated period, which was a valid mode of payment. The court held that the appellate court did not exceed its jurisdiction and the deposit constituted compliance. The revision was dismissed, and the appellate court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Payment into Court - Order XXI Rule 1(1) CPC - The appellate court allowed the appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.4000/- by the defendants to the plaintiff within two weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The defendants filed an application seeking permission to deposit the costs in court, which was allowed. The High Court held that the deposit of costs in court was a valid mode of payment under Order XXI Rule 1(1)(c) CPC, and the appellate court did not err in permitting such deposit. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure - Conditional Decree - Compliance - Order XLI Rule 23 CPC - The appellate court's order was conditional, requiring payment of costs within two weeks. The defendants deposited the costs in court within the stipulated period. The High Court held that the deposit constituted compliance with the condition, and the appeal did not stand dismissed. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court acted beyond its jurisdiction by permitting the defendants to deposit the amount of costs in court instead of paying it directly to the plaintiff, and whether such deposit amounts to compliance with the conditional order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the appellate court's order permitting deposit of costs in court. The court held that the deposit constituted compliance with the conditional order and the appeal did not stand dismissed.
Law Points
- Order XXI Rule 1(1) CPC
- payment into court
- conditional decree
- compliance with decree
- deposit of costs
