Madras High Court
OSA/246/2022 of Dr.S.Manopriya Vs Dr.G.Rajarajan on 12 October 2026
OSA No. 246 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 246 of 2022
and CMP.No.15718 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011030362022}
Dr.S.Manopriya
W/o.Dr.G.Rajarajan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Dr.G.Rajarajan
S/o.Ganesan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by in A.No.1122 of 2022 in OP.No.558 of 2020 and permit the appellant to mark the documents on the side of the appellant.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.P.M.Bakthavatsalam
For Respondent(s):
Ms.R.Sumithra Chakkaravarthi
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This Original Side Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing A.No.1122 of 2022, filed by the appellant seeking permission to file additional documents in O.P.No.558 of 2020.
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 246 of 2022
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: The appellant had originally filed A.No.1122 of 2022 seeking permission to file additional documents in O.P.No.558 of 2020. The said application was allowed by this Court, subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.03.2022, and the matter was directed to be posted for reporting compliance on 01.04.2022. However, since the appellant had failed to comply with the conditional order by paying the costs imposed thereunder, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 01.04.2022, dismissed the said application.
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application on the ground of non- compliance with the conditional order, the appellant has preferred the present Original Side Appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the imposition of costs of Rs.50,000/- was the subject matter of challenge in another Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.168 of 2022, which had already been filed before this Court. It is further submitted that the said appeal was allowed by this Court on 09.10.2026. Therefore, in view of the order passed by this
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 246 of 2022
Court setting aside the imposition of costs, the appellant contends that the dismissal of the application for non-compliance with the conditional order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would accordingly submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the present appeal is also liable to be allowed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the appellant's request for allowing the present appeal in view of the subsequent order passed by this Court in O.S.A.No.168 of 2022.
6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing A.No.1122 of 2022 for non-compliance with the conditional order warrants interference by this Court in the present Original Side Appeal?
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. This Court is of the view that the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to file additional documents was dismissed by the learned
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 246 of 2022
Single Judge solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the conditional order directing payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.03.2022. Thus, the dismissal of the application was a consequence of the appellant's failure to comply with the condition imposed by the Court.
9. It is relevant to note that the conditional order imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- was challenged by the appellant in O.S.A.No.168 of 2022. Subsequently, the said appeal was allowed by this Court on 09.10.2026, thereby setting aside the order imposing costs. In view of the subsequent order, the very condition on the basis of which the application was dismissed no longer survives.
10. In view of the order passed by this Court in O.S.A.No.168 of 2022, setting aside the imposition of costs, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing A.No.1122 of 2022 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the application is to be restored for consideration in accordance with law.
11. In the result, this Original Side Appeal is allowed and the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing A.No.1122 of 2022 in O.P.No.558 of 2020 is set aside. Consequently, A.No.1122 of 2022 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 246 of 2022
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR To The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Madras, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 246 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR OSA No. 246 of 2022 12-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )