Madras High Court
OSA/168/2022 of DR.S.MANOPRIYA Vs DR.G.RAJARAJAN on 9 October 2026
OSA No. 168 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 168 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.10640 & 26614 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA010929522022}
Dr.S.Manopriya
W/o.Dr.G.Rajarajan, No.S-2, Chozha Kanakham, No.44, P.T.Rajan Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600078.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Dr.G.Rajarajan
S/o.Ganesan, No.3105, Second Floor, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh - 160 036.
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of OS Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by in A.No.1122/2022 in OP No.558/2020 and permit the appellant to mark the documents on the side of the appellant.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.R.Gururaj
for Mr.P.M.Baktharatasalam
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.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.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2022 imposing a costs of Rs.50,000/- while allowing the application to receive the documents in evidence on behalf of the appellant, the present appeal has been
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 02:38:44 pm )
OSA No. 168 of 2022
filed.
2. The appellant has filed an application seeking to receive the documents in evidence on behalf of the respondent in OP.No.558 of 2020. The learned Single Judge though allowed the application, imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue relates to custody matter, therefore, once the documents is sought to be filed by the respondent in OP.No.558 of 2020, the learned Single Judge ought not to have imposed costs which is unreasonable, hence, seeks for allowing this appeal.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Now, the point arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge is reasonable?
6. Since the issue relates to a custody matter and appellant is seeking to adduce evidence, imposing costs of Rs.50,000/-, in our view is not proper. Furthermore, costs cannot be imposed routinely without examining the deliberate conduct of the parties showing that a party acted intentionally to delay the proceedings. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- is not proper and the cost alone is set aside.
7. Accordingly, this original side appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Let the evidence be completed before the Master expeditiously and the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the Original Petition expeditiously.
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 02:38:44 pm )
OSA No. 168 of 2022
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 02:38:44 pm )
OSA No. 168 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 168 of 2022 09-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 02:38:44 pm )