IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15942 of 2024 ==========================================================

RAMSINGBHAI DHANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus DAHYABHAI DHANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR NISARG J DESAI(13298) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROMA I FIDELIS(3529) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 31/01/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Desai for the petitioner. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“a. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow and admit this Application;

b. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction and may be pleased to quash and set aside the cost imposed by the Ld. 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand in Civil Misc. Application No. 91 of 2021 vide order dated 04.07.2023; marked as Arm"

A"

c. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Registrar, District Court, Anand to allow the Applicant in preferring and filing of appeal challenging the Judgment and B Colly Decree dated 01.10.2021/passed by the Ld. 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand, without Payment of costs; and d. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further relief deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the prayer made in the present petition is for quashing and setting aside the order of the trial court, but it is confined only to the part of the cost which has been imposed by the trial court.

2.1 He would further submit that after the dismissal of the suit, as per the legal advice received by the petitioner, a review application was filed before the trial court being Civil Misc. Application No.91 of 2021, which came to be rejected vide impugned order, whereby the trial court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority,25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Anand.

2.2 He would submit that the cost imposed is exorbitant and not germane to the application. He would submit that it has not been observed in the order that any fraud has been committed by the petitioner. He would submit that due to the non-payment of cost, even the petitioner is not able to file an appeal before the District Court as the registry of the District Court is insisting on first depositing the cost, thereby seriously affecting the rights of the petitioner. He would lastly submit that the cost imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced, and if this court thinks it fit, the reasonable cost may be imposed.

3. This court has gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court. Prima facie, it appears that the trial court has rejected the review application, being not satisfied that there is any error apparent on the face of the record, as shown by the petitioner. It is thereby observed that having consumed the judicial time in such an application, which is bereft of any merit, the application is rejected with a cost of ₹25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority,25,000.

4. I have considered the entire set of facts and circumstances of the case and examined the aspect of the cost imposed. It is required to be noted that the trial court, while imposing a cost of ₹25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority,25,000, has not reached to the conclusion that the review application filed by the petitioner is vexatious or false. It is true that no case might have been made out for review, and thereby, the time of the civil court must have been consumed to decide such an application, but at the same