Courts possess the authority to mandate costs as a condition precedent for accepting delayed pleadings when a party consistently neglects judicial deadlines without justification, thereby preventing the abuse of legal processes through systemic adjournments and protecting the interests of parties incurring costs due to such delays.

Headnote:(A) Procedure - Filing of reply affidavit - Failure of party to comply with repeated court orders for filing affidavits - Imposition of costs - The court observed that repetitive and mechanical requests for adjournments to file affidavits without valid justification contribute to the delay of proceedings and burden the petitioners with avoidable litigation expenses. When judicial orders are ignored for prolonged periods, the court is justified in taking a strict view and imposing costs as a condition precedent for granting leave to file the delayed affidavit. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The proceedings, originating in the year 2006, were delayed due to the failure of a respondent to file a reply affidavit despite multiple directions issued by the court. No application for extension of time was filed, and the matter faced repeated adjournments, causing prejudice and additional financial burden to the opposing parties.

Findings of Court:
The court permitted the filing of the affidavit subject to the payment of fixed costs to the statutory legal aid body, stipulating that the payment of such costs is a condition precedent.

Issues: The main issues were whether the court should grant leave to file a reply affidavit after repeated instances of default and whether the imposition of costs is warranted for consistent non-compliance with judicial timelines.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated failures to file pleadings without valid justification plague the judicial process, necessitating a strict judicial approach, including the award of costs to compensate the opposing party for unnecessary litigation expenditure caused by unwarranted delay.

Result: Liberty granted to parties to approach the appropriate bench; filing of affidavit permitted subject to payment of costs as a condition precedent.

P.C.

1. At the outset we observe that by an order passed by the First Bench (Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice {as His Lordship then was} and S.V.Marne, J.) dated 1st August 2025, the proceedings were assigned to this Bench (G.S.Kulkarni, J.). The said order reads thus :

“1. As per administrative order dated 28 July 2025, let the Petitions be listed before a Bench headed by Hon’ble Shri Justice G.S.Kulkarni.”

2. Accordingly the matter has appeared before this Bench. Earlier the same was required to be adjourned to file affidavit of Union of India. In such context we may refer to two orders dated 23rd September 2025 and 7th October 2025, which clearly record that learned counsel for the Union of India has sought time to file the affidavit. The said orders are required to be noted.

“Order dated 23-9-2025 :

1. … …

2. … …

3. … …

4. We are informed by learned counsel for the Union of India that reply affidavit is ready and it would be soon filed. Let the same be filed within a period of one week from today and a copy of the same be served on the petitioners. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. A copy of the same be served on the advocate for the respondents two days prior to the adjourned date of hearing.

5. parties are put to notice that on the adjourned date of hearing, the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on this batch of petitions.”

“Order dated 7th October 2025 :

1. .. ..

2. The learned counsel for Union of India, has waived service on behalf of Attorney General of India.

3. Today the learned Counsel for Union of India submits that some more time is required for filing reply affidavits.

4. As a matter of last chance, let the reply affidavit be filed on or before 4th November 2025.”

3. The proceedings are today listed for direction in pursuance of our last orders dated 7th October 2025 and 23rd September 2025. We had directed the Union of India to file a reply affidavit as such affidavit would be vital in the adjudication of the present proceedings. We are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that in spite of clear order being passed, the Union of India has not filed the affidavit. Last chance was granted to the Union of India to file affidavit. Also there is no prayer for extension of time to file an affidavit.

4. Considering the view taken by this Court in its order dated 29th August 2024 in Sudhakar Madhukar Patil and others Vs. The Collector, Thane (Writ Petition No.9319 of 2022) and as there is admittedly breach of the orders passed by this Court in not filing an affidavit as also there was no application made seeking extension of time, we permit the Union of India to file affidavit subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, Mumbai. Payment of costs shall be condition precedent. We are inclined to pass such an order considering the following observations made in the orders in Sudhakar Madhukar Patil and others Vs. The Collector, Thane :

4. In the above circumstances, when for a period of one year an order passed by this Court directing the respondents to file reply affidavit is not being complied, we have no alternative but to impose costs. Thus, as a matter of last chance, liberty is granted to file reply affidavits not later than 12 September 2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners. Stand over to 12 September 2024.

5. We are constrained to pass the aforesaid order as the prior orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, setting out specific timelines to file reply affidavits are totally neglected when they were required to be complied. At no point of time during such a long period of more than one year any application was filed on behalf of the respondents seeking an extension of time to file reply affidavits, when the specific orders were staring at the respondents. As if it is a routine “mantra”, the learned AGP as also the learned Counsel for respondent No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document