SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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




A court should exercise discretion in imposing costs, especially when initial circumstances change and the claims of the parties are vindicated.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 8 - Petitioner challenges the imposition of costs by the Trial Court for seeking original title deeds from the respondent, who initially denied their possession but later produced them - Court finds it just to quash the imposed costs. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Trial Court's authority - A court should exercise discretion regarding costs imposed, particularly when circumstances change and initial claims are vindicated. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested costs imposed by the Trial Court, which arose from demands for title documents previously confirmed in the respondent's possession, invoking a Memorandum of Understanding.

Findings of Court:
The costs imposed were quashed, as the respondent eventually produced the title documents, validating the petitioner's insistence.

Issues: The main question was whether the costs were warranted given the change in circumstances regarding document possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Trial Court should reconsider costs when the facts change, emphasizing fairness in the judicial process.

Result: Costs quashed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to trial court's imposition of costs. (Para 1)
2. claim of original title deeds production. (Para 2 , 3)
3. dispute over possession of title documents. (Para 4 , 6)
4. court's reasoning on cost waiver. (Para 7)
5. court's decision quashing imposed costs. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top