Non-payment of court costs leads to ex-parte orders, which can be challenged if justified.

1. Heard Mr. H. C. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. This is an application filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution thereby challenging the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Title Suit No.177/2022 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the learned Trial Court on account of not depositing the cost of Rs.3,000/- on 30.09.2024 and 04.10.2024, restored the order dated 01.03.2024.

3. This Court having perused the impugned order and also taking into account the manner in which the jurisdiction has been exercised by the learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati is of the opinion that even without issuance of notice upon the respondent, appropriate order is required to be passed thereby disposing of the instant proceedings in as much as by issuing notice and staying the further proceedings of Title Suit No.177/2022 would not serve the interest of either of the parties to the suit.

4. Accordingly, this Court is not issuing notice upon the respondent. It is seen that the suit being Title Suit No.177/2022 had proceeded ex - parte against both the defendants on the basis of an order dated 01.03.2024 on the ground that they did not appear on the date fixed for their appearance. Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioners who were the defendants for seeking vacation of the O.01.03.2024. The learned Trial Court vide the order dated 07.09.2024 allowed the said petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- thereby fixing 30.09.2024 for payment of cost. However, the petitioners herein who were the defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to deposit the cost on 30.09.2024 for which the learned Trial Court fixed the matter again on 04.10.2024 for payment on which date also the petitioners failed to deposit the cost. Subsequent thereto, another application was filed by the petitioners which was registered as Petition No.1384/2024 for again recalling the order dated 04.10.2024 to proceed ex - party against the defendants. It is further pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs had also filed an application for impalement of some other defendants in the suit and on the 26.11.2024 not only the impugned order was passed, but 3 more defendants were added, and accordingly, the suit was again reverted back to the stage of SR / WS.

5. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of Rs.3000/-, but on account of the fault of the counsel who was appearing, the petitioners should not suffer.

6. This Court has also taken note of that the defendants have already filed their written statement on 30.06.2022 and the suit is presently at the stage of filing of pleadings wherein the petitioners have nothing to do in the said suit till it goes to the next stage, i.e. for framing of issues.

7. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the direction to proceed ex parte against the petitioners, that too w.e.f. 01.03.2024 vide the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 was uncalled for by the learned Trial Court.

8. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 whereby it was observed that the order dated 01.03.2024 is interfered with.

9. This Court however also cannot be unmindful of the negligence on the part of the petitioners which has led to unnecessary judicial proceedings.

10. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that some costs has to be further imposed upon the petitioners apart from the amount of Rs.3,000/- already directed to