PRECIOUS BLOOD MISSIONARIES Vs. NISHANTH LUIZE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How is Ext.P2 judgment to be interpreted to calculate costs, is the short question for consideration in this original petition?

(2.) The petitioners' case, in a nutshell, relevant for the determination of the original petition is that they are the defendants in O.S.No.35/2014, filed by the respondent, before the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, North Paravur, for a decree to direct the petitioners to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule properties or alternatively to permit the respondent to recover from the petitioners an amount of Rs.6,36,00,000.00 with interest. The respondent had filed Ext.P1 plaint, inter alia, contending that the petitioners had agreed to sell their properties having an extent of 285.13 ares of land in Alangad village, elaborately described in the schedule appended to the plaint, to the respondent for an amount for Rs.1,75,000.00 per cent. Pursuant to the agreement of sale dtd. 15/4/2011 entered into between the parties, the respondent had paid the petitioners an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 on different dates. Albeit the requests made by the respondent to the petitioners, they willfully refused to execute the sale deed. Hence, Ext.P-1 was instituted. The petitioners had filed Ext.P2 written statement refuting the allegations in the plaint. The court below, by Ext.P2 judgment, partly decreed the suit by Ext.P.3 decree, permitting the respondent to recover from the first petitioner the advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 with interest and costs. As per Ext.P3 decree, the petitioners are directed to pay the respondent an amount of Rs.1,11,94,848.00 as costs. The costs awarded by the court below are contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'Code') and the Rules framed thereunder. Hence, the petitioners had filed Ext.P4 application to correct the decree. The respondent had objected to the application by filing Ext.P5 counter objection. The court below, on an erroneous appreciation of the facts and the law, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, has dismissed Ext.P4 application. Ext.P6 is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri. Raju Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.