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

1979 Supreme(P&H) 55

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
Manak Chand
Versus
Suresh Chand Jain
Civil Revision No. 324 of 1979,
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1979

Failure to pay costs awarded under Section 35-B of the CPC on the next date of hearing does not automatically lead to debarring the party from prosecuting the case if the non-payment was not brought to the court's notice on the relevant date.

Headnote:

HARYANA URBAN (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT - SECTION 35-B - COSTS OF CAUSING DELAY - INTERPRETATION - PENAL PROVISION - STRICT CONSTRUCTION - FAILURE TO PAY COSTS ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING - DEBARRING FROM PROSECUTING THE CASE - CONDITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Suresh Chand Jain, filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act against the respondent, Manak Chand. The Rent Controller fixed various dates for the petitioner's evidence, but he failed to lead full evidence. On October 3, 1978, the petitioner requested to summon additional witnesses. The Rent Controller allowed the request subject to payment of Rs. 15 as costs and adjourned the case to November 4, 1978. On that date, the petitioner again failed to produce the additional witnesses or appear in the witness box and did not pay the costs awarded on October 3, 1978. The case was adjourned to November 29, 1978, subject to payment of Rs. 10 as costs. On the adjourned date, the petitioner again failed to pay the costs awarded on October 3, 1978, and November 4, 1978. On December 19, 1978, the respondent filed an application to strike off the petitioner's right to prosecute the application for fair rent under Section 35-B of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for failing to pay the costs. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, and the respondent filed a revision petition against this order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of Section 35-B of the CPC are penal in nature and shall apply where, on the date when the costs are to be paid, the fact is brought to the notice of the Court before the party liable to pay the costs takes a step in the case. If on that date it is not brought to the notice of the Court and the party takes a step or leads evidence, he cannot be deprived of his right to further prosecute the case on the subsequent date.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be debarred from prosecuting the case for failing to pay the costs awarded under Section 35-B of the CPC on the next date of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 35-B of the CPC strictly, considering its penal nature. It held that the petitioner could not be debarred from prosecuting the case since the respondent failed to bring the non-payment of costs to the court's notice on the date when the costs were to be paid. The court reasoned that if the respondent had brought the matter to the court's attention on that date, the petitioner might have paid the costs and avoided the penalty.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Rent Controller's order rejecting the respondent's application to strike off the petitioner's right to prosecute the application for fair rent.

Judgment

1. This revision petition has been filed by the respondent against the order of the Rent Controller, Hissar, dated Jan. 29, 1979, whereby he rejected the application for striking off the right to prosecute the application for fixation of fair rent by Suresh Chand Jain, applicant.

2. Briefly the facts are that Suresh Chand Jain filed an application for fixation of fair rent, under S.4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, against Manak Chand respondent. The Rent Controller fixed various dates for the evidence of the petitioner but he could not lead full evidence. Ultimately Oct. 3, 1978 was fixed for the statement of the petitioner. On that date he made a request for summoning the additional witnesses. The learned Rent Controller allowed the request subject to payment of Rs. 15 as costs and adjourned the case to Nov. 4, 1978. On that date too the petitioner did not produce the additional witnesses nor he himself appeared in the witness box. He also did not pay the costs awarded on Oct. 3, 1978. On his request the case was again adjourned to Nov. 29, 1978, subject to payment of Rs. 10 as costs. On the adjourned date he again did not pay the costs which were awarded on Oct. 3, 1978 and on Nov. 4, 1978. On December 19, 1978, the respondent filed an application that the petitioner has forfeited his right of prosecution of the application for fair rent under S.35-B of the Civil P.C. as he had failed to pay the costs. The Rent Controller dismissed the application. The respondent has come up in revision petition against that order of the Rent Controller.

3. The question that arises for determination in the present case is that if costs are awarded against the petitioner under S.35-B of the Civil P.C. which are not paid on the next date of hearing and matter is not brought to the notice of the Court on that date, can he be debarred from prosecuting the case on a subsequent date. In order to determine this question, it will be proper to refer to the provisions of Section 35-B of the Code which reads as follows :-

"35-B Costs of causing delay - (1) If, on any date fixed for the hearing of a suit or for taking any step therein, a party to the suit -

(a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under this Code to take on that date, or

(b) obtains an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order requiring such party to pay to the other party such costs as would, in the opinion of the Court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in attending the Court on that date, and payment of such costs, on the date next following the date of such order, shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of (a) the suit by the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was ordered to pay such costs,

(b) the defence by the defendant, where the defendant was ordered to pay such costs.

Explanation.- Where separate defences have been raised by the defendants or groups of defendants, payment of such costs shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the defence by such defendants or groups of defendants as have been ordered by the Court to pay such costs.

(2) The costs, ordered to be paid under Sub-Sec. (1), shall not, if paid be included in the costs awarded in the decree passed in the suit; but, if such costs are not paid, a separate order shall be drawn up indicating the amount of such costs and the names and addresses of the persons by whom such costs are payable and the order so drawn up shall be executable against such persons."

4. From a reading of the above Section, it is evident that if costs are awarded to the respondent on the ground that the petitioner failed to take the step which he was required under the Code to take on some date, or obtained an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground, the payment of costs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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