Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J
SAURABH BEHAL – Appellant
Versus
AARUSHI SACHDEVA – Respondent
CM(M) 1023/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manmohan Kumar, Mr. J.S. Matta
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Singh, Mr. Vikrant
A party's conduct in failing to pay imposed costs can result in denied rights in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for good faith engagement in trials.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order for cost under Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Divorce petition - Cost imposed was not cleared, leading to denial of right to lead evidence - Recalling witnesses under wrong provisions can delay proceedings - Petitioner uncooperative, seeking unnecessary waivers - Court grants one last opportunity to present defense. (Paras 1-28)
(B) Conduct of Parties - The court observed the conduct of the petitioner in seeking waivers while assuring payment constituted a lack of bona fide intention to participate in proceedings, undermining fair trial principles. (Paras 5-23)
(C) Issues on Submission - The court underscored the principles of ensuring a fair trial while emphasizing that frivolous attempts to delay proceedings would not be tolerated. (Paras 18-24)
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court's decision to close the petitioner’s right to lead evidence was upheld as there was no interference warranted on merits due to the petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders.
Result: Petition disposed of with a final opportunity granted for defense presentation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner failed to pay imposed costs. (Para 1) |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. When the present petition was taken up by this Court on 10.07.2025, the following order was passed:-
“1. Petitioner is defending a divorce petition filed by his wife.
2. A cost of Rs. 10,000/-was imposed upon him on 16.01.2025, which he did not clear. He, rather, moved an application seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2, albeit, under a wrong provision.
3. The impugned order dated 20.03.2025 would indicate that he refused to make the payment of the cost unless his subsequent application seeking recall was allowed.
4. While declining such request, the court further imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon him with the direction that, in case, the cost was not paid, his right to lead evidence would also be closed.
5. Since the cost remained unpaid, his right to lead evidence also stands closed.
Signature Not Verified CM(M) 1023/2025 1 Digitally Signed
6. Such orders are under challenge.
7. On 05.06.2025, there was no appearance from the side of respondent and the matter has now been adjourned to 26.07.2025 by learned Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner feels apologetic for the observations about the conduct of the petitioner as appearing in order dated 20.03.2025 and, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, submits that the unpaid cost of Rs. 20,000/- shall be cleared within one week from today. 9. Let it be done.
10. It may either be transmitted through online banking channel, in case, the petitioner is having the requisite details or in alternate, he would move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court in this regard within one week.
11. Issue notice through all permissible modes as also through counsel, returnable on 24.07.2025.”
2. Pursuant to the abovesaid order, notice was issued and respondent has appeared along with her counsel.
3. When asked from Mr. Manmohan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the cost had been duly paid, he apprised that since the petitioner was not having the details of the bank account of his wife, he moved an application before the learned Trial Court.
4. During course of the arguments, he was asked to show copy of such application and the contents of such application, somehow, goes contrary to the undertaking which had been given by Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, before this Court on the last date of hearing.
5. As already noticed above, on the last of date, learned counsel for the petitioner, had, while tendering apology for the conduct of the petitioner, also volunteered to clear the cost of Rs.20,000/- within one week.
6. However, despite such specific assurance made before this Court, Signature Not Verified CM(M) 1023/2025 2 Digitally Signed when the application was moved before the learned Trial Court it was, inter alia, with the prayer that such cost be waived. Undoubtedly, he also sought details of the bank account of his wife but fact remains, that his prime prayer in the abovesaid application was seeking waiver of the cost.
7. This is really intriguing.
8. When a specific statement had been made before this Court and this Court had also shown indulgence and compassion to the petitioner, instead of making the payment within stipulated period, the petitioner has rather sought waiver of the cost which is certainly not in good taste.
9. Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been able to arrange only part of the cost.
10. In view of above, it will be appropriate to decide the petition on merits.
11. Let me, therefore, switch to the impugned order dated 20.03.2025.
12. Admittedly, prior to such order, cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, vide order dated 16.01.2025.
13. The respondent herein has filed a petition seeking divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, and during trial, she entered into witness box as PW-1 and her brother was examined as PW-2.
14. These witnesses were though cross
