Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Arun Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Arun Batra - Respondent
CM(M) 343 of 2020 & CM APPL. 9943 of 2020
Decided on : 09-01-2023
Costs - Original Title Deeds - The court quashed the costs imposed by the trial court after finding that the respondent had produced the original title documents, which were initially claimed to be not in his possession, thus vindicating the petitioner's insistence on their possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 as costs while dismissing two applications of the petitioner, related to the original title deeds handed over to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had produced the original title documents, which were initially claimed to be not in his possession, and quashed the costs imposed by the trial court.
Issues: Imposition of costs by the trial court, production of original title documents by the respondent, and waiver of the imposed costs by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court quashed the costs after finding that the respondent had produced the original title documents, thus vindicating the petitioner's insistence on their possession and noting the anomaly in the trial court's decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed the costs imposed by the trial court and disposed of the petition along with the pending application.
JUDGMENT :
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.02.2020, whereby while dismissing two applications of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
2. Ms. Khanna, Special Power of Attorney (SPA) for the petitioner submits that all that the petitioner had sought besides the other documents, was the original title deeds which were handed over to the respondent by the petitioner.
3. Ms. Khanna submits that in the compliance affidavit filed in pursuance of the application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, 1908, initially, the respondent had taken a stand that the original title documents are not in his possession. However, subsequently, he had produced the original title documents which was noted by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 26.02.2020.
4. The cost which was imposed upon the petitioner, were for the reasons that the petitioner was insisting that the respondent was in possession of the original title deeds and the respondent had refused. This stood vindicated vide the noting made in order dated 26.02.2020, whereby the respondent who was defendant No.1 had produced the original title documents, as mentioned in para 3 of her application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, 1908.
5. Ms.Khanna submits that title documents had been given as security by the petitioner and relies upon para 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.12.2016 which is at page 100 of the present paper book.
6. Ms. Khanna further submits that having noted the anomaly, the learned Trial Court ought to have waived the condition of payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost, which it did not do so.
7. In view of the above submissions and keeping in view the noting in the order dated 26.02.2020 that the respondent/defendant No.1 had in fact produced the original titled documents which are stated to be now placed on record, the learned Trial Court ought not to have imposed the cost which it did or it ought to have waived the same even at a later stage.
8. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and finds it in the interest of justice to quash the cost as imposed by learned Trial Court vide Order dated 18.02.2020.
9. Nothing survives further in the petition. The petition along with the pending application is disposed of in above terms.
The court may quash costs imposed by the trial court if it finds that the respondent has produced the original title documents, vindicating the petitioner's insistence on their possession.
A court should exercise discretion in imposing costs, especially when initial circumstances change and the claims of the parties are vindicated.
Lack of diligence and vigilance in producing crucial documents can lead to the rejection of an application to place them on record, and the absence of reference to such documents in the written state....
Procedural diligence in presenting evidence is critical; failure to timely submit essential documents warrants upholding the Trial Court’s decision to deny late evidence.
The court has the discretion to set aside the imposition of costs if it deems them to be onerous, considering the circumstances of the petitioner.
At a nascent stage of a suit, necessary amendments or corrections can be allowed without prejudicing anyone, including the defendant.
The court allows a writ petition directing tax authorities to return a title deed or confirm its loss, clarifying obligations under statutory procedures.
Documents submitted as evidence must be original or certified copies to be admissible in court, as per the provisions of the C.P.C.
Non-payment of costs and non-production of documents relied upon in the written statement can lead to the striking off of the defence as per the provisions of Section 35-B CPC and Order 8 Rule 1 A CP....
The court has the discretion to modify costs imposed, and expeditious disposal of suits may be requested in consideration of relevant circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
