Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Ajit Saxena – Appellant
Versus
Roshni Rajaram – Respondent
CM(M) 757 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Costs - Miscommunication in Court Proceedings - The court set aside the costs imposed on the petitioner due to confusion and miscommunication in the court proceedings, without commenting on the merits of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order imposing costs on the counsel for miscommunication during court proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the confusion in communication and set aside the costs imposed on the petitioner, while expunging harsh observations made by the trial court on the counsel.
Issues: Miscommunication in court proceedings, imposition of costs, observations on the counsel
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the confusion and miscommunication in court proceedings warranted setting aside the costs imposed on the petitioner, and expunged harsh observations made on the counsel.
Final Decision: The costs imposed on the petitioner were set aside, and the observations on the counsel were expunged from the record.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 23853/2023
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 757/2023 & CM APPL. 23852/2023 (Stay)
3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.04.2023 in CS DJ ADJ No. 589/2022 titled Roshani Rajaram vs. Ajit Saxena whereby the learned Trial Court had imposed costs of Rs.15,000/- on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant.
4. Dr. Amit George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and submits that it is possible that since the counsel for the petitioner was appearing through VC, the communication in respect of the reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the replication filed by the respondent/plaintiff may have been taken to be reference to paragraphs 6 and 8 by the learned Trial Court, which is clear from the perusal of the impugned order and in that miscommunication and in addition thereto, the confusion created by the appearance on VC, the learned Trial Court has, in all probabilities, misunderstood the submissions made therein and has imposed costs on the assumption that there is a misdemeanor by the counsel.
5. Dr. George, learned counsel submits that the case may be considered sympathetically and without, in any manner, casting aspersions on the learned Trial Court or otherwise.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of Dr. Goerge, as also perused the impugned order and has considered the confusion in respect of paragraphs 6 and 8 in relation to the communication of learned counsel referring to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the replication.
7. Without commenting or observing anything on the merits of the impugned order and without changing anything therein, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the costs as imposed upon the petitioner, leaving the order without any change.
8. Dr. George has submitted that the counsel is a young Advocate at Bar and therefore, the observations in paragraph 4 may be a little harsh.
9. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the observations made by the learned Trial Court in paragraph 4 so far as the counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant is concerned, the said observation shall stand expunged from the record of the Court.
10. In that view of the matter, the petition alongwith application stands disposed of.
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 emphasizes the importance of imposing costs to ensure fairness in civil proceedings, modifying previous orders to enhance justice.
Judicial discretion under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly, reaffirming that costs imposed by lower courts for adjournments can be upheld if justified by the conduct of the parties.
The Court reaffirmed that costs imposed for procedural negligence are not appealable and serve to discourage future lapses.
The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes the importance of valid service of notice and the lack of valid reason for imposing costs.
The court established that costs imposed by a Tribunal can be reviewed and set aside if compliance with the Tribunal's orders is demonstrated and the affected party does not insist on the payment.
A court should exercise discretion in imposing costs, especially when initial circumstances change and the claims of the parties are vindicated.
Delay in filing written statements in civil suits may be condoned with reasonable compensatory costs to promote litigation on merits rather than technicalities.
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
