Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Naresh Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
Jagdish - Respondent
CM(M) 163 of 2022
Decided On : 30-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial intervention in cost waiver request. (Para 1) |
| 2. repeated adjournments justified cost imposition. (Para 2 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. history of adjournments before learned adj. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. article 227 jurisdiction limited to rare cases. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. petition dismissed; cost reduction request noted. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
CM(M) 163/2022
1. This petition seeks judicial intervention by the Court with an order dated 18th February, 2020, passed by the learned ADJ, which reads as under:
"RCA DJ87/18
NARESH CHAUHAN Vs. JAGDISH AND ORS.
18.02.2020
Present: Sh. Deepak Verma, Ld. Proxy Counsel for appellant.
Sh. R.K. Kaishik, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.4 & 5.
An application for waiver of cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the appellant on the last date has been filed on behalf of appellant by the proxy counsel. Copy supplied.
Perused. Heard.
The case has been adjourned repeatedly at request of counsel for appellant. Even the suit of the appellant was dismissed with costs.
It is stated in the application that appellant is still in custody accordingly cost be waived of.
Though the application has been filed for waiver of cost but arguing counsel for appellant is still not present to argue the matter.
Ld. Counsel for respondent opposed the application and submits that he is ready to argue on the appeal.
Keeping in mind the fact that despite the cost being imposed the counsel for appellant has not made himself available to argue on the appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow the application. The same is accordingly dismissed.
It is made clear that if the Ld. Counsel for appellant is not present on the next date to address arguments, the arguments shall be heard from Ld. Counsel for respondent only and appeal shall be decided.
Be listed for arguments on 17.03.2020."
2. A bare reading of the impugned order reveals that the learned ADJ has, in imposing the costs had taken into account the fact that this case was adjourned repeatedly at the request of learned Counsel for the appellant and that, even on 18th February, 2020, learned Counsel for the appellant was not in a position to argue the matter.
3. When this petition was listed before the Court on 17th February, 2022, a statement was made to the effect that the petitioner had concluded arguments in the appeal, but that the respondents/appellant before the learned ADJ have not addressed arguments despite several opportunities.
4. This Court, in the circumstances, directed learned Counsel for the petitioner to place the order sheets of the First Appellate Court on record.
5. That has been done. On perusal of the order sheets, it transpires that, on,
(i) On 30th April, 2019, learned Counsel for the parties sought time to advance arguments.
(ii) On 9th September, 2019, learned Counsel for the appellant sought an adjournment.
(iii) On 8th January, 2020, learned Counsel for the appellant sought an adjournment in the appeal and a final opportunity was granted.
(iv) On 31st January, 2020, learned Counsel for the appellant again sought an adjournment which was allowed subject to costs of Rs.50,000/-.
(v) Despite imposition of costs, learned Counsel for the appellant was not available to argue the appeal on the next date of hearing, i.e. 18th February, 2020. A yet another opportunity was granted on a clear understanding that the arguments would be heard on the next date of hearing.
(vi) On 17th March, 2020, the matter was again adjourned for hearing arguments on the appeal on 28th April, 2020.
(vii) On 11th December, 2020, the matter was again adjourned for arguments on 5th February, 2021.
(viii) On 5th February, 2021, at request, the matter was again re-listed for arguments on 8th April, 2021.
(ix) On 8th April, 2021, arguments were advanced by the appellant.
6. Thereafter, arguments were advanced on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5 on 8th September, 2021.
7. At this stage, the present petition came to be filed before this Court, under Article 227 of the
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.
An arbitrator's costs can be challenged if deemed excessive, particularly when justified reasons for adjournments are presented.
The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, allowing for discretion in permitting late defenses under mitigating circumstances, without the ability to substitute the lower court's deci....
A procedural amendment related to a bank guarantee invocation should not incur costs on the petitioner, particularly when necessitated by circumstances beyond their control.
The court affirmed the principle that discretionary orders regarding costs by lower courts should not be interfered with unless shown to be excessive or unjust.
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
A court under Article 227 will not interfere in adjourned proceedings unless there are compelling reasons. The parties retain the right to resolve disputes before the original judge.
Availability of such a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure to be construed as near to total bar for the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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
