1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 18.01.2017 passed in O.S. No.2017/2004 on the

file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. In terms of the impugned

judgment and decree, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with

cost of Rs.1,00,000.00. Out of Rs.1,00,000.00 cost imposed,

Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the defendants and

Rs.50,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru

Urban.

2. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and

decree are in appeal assailing the decree of dismissal as well as

the order imposing costs.

3.

Ms Desiree M Pais, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants on instructions submits that, the appellants are

only confining the challenge to the part of the decree imposing

costs. Assailing the judgment and decree imposing the cost,

the learned counsel submits that no reason is assigned by the

trial court for imposing the cost of Rs.1 lakh. Cost is imposed is

contrary to the statutory limit prescribed under Section 35A of

the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts do not have the power

- 4 -

to award cost in excess of maximum amount specified in

Section 35A of the Code. In support of her contention, learned

counsel would place reliance on the judgments of the Apex

Court in the cases of:

(1) ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL vs RAM KUMAR GUPTA

AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)2 SCC 656.

(2) UFLEX LIMITED vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL

NADU AND OTHERS reported in (2022)1 SCC

165.

4. Referring to the aforementioned judgments, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the

trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding cost in excess

of Rs.3,000.

5. Learned counsel Sri Syed Khamruddin appearing for

the respondents would justify the cost imposed by the trial

Court and would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of DNYANDEO SABAJI NAIK AND

ANOTHER

vs

PRADNYA

PRAKASH

KHADEKAR

AND

OTHERS reported in (2017)5 SCC 496. Referring to the said

judgment,

learned

counsel

would

submit

that

the

aforementioned judgment is delivered by the Bench comprising

- 5 -

of three judges and he would refer to paragraph 14 of the said

judgment and would submit that the power of the Court in

imposing cost is not limited by what is contained in Section 35A

of the Code. He would further submit that the trial Court has

referred to the conduct of the plaintiffs in filing frivolous case

where the plaintiffs laid a claim over the property which was

not acquired by the plaintiffs. Though the document clearly

revealed that the property is lawfully purchased by the

defendants, the plaintiffs un-necessarily raised a dispute when

the defendant made an application for correction of an error in

the revenue records pertaining to the property purchased by

the defendant. He would further submit that in terms of

paragraph 42 of the judgment, the trial Court has recorded

reasons to hold that the plaintiffs have filed a frivolous case

without any basis and he would therefore urge the Court to

dismiss the appeal.

6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at

the bar and also the citations submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents.

- 6 -

7.

Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as

under:

35-A. Compensatory costs in respect of false or

vexatious claims or defences.— (1) If in any suit or

other proceeding, including an execution proceeding but

excluding an appeal or a revision, any party objects to the

claim or defence on the ground that the claim or defence

or any part of it is, as against the objector, false or

vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has

been put forward, and if thereafter, as against the

objector, such claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned

or withdrawn in whole or in part, the Court, if it so thinks

fit, may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim

or defence to be false or vexatious, make an order for the

payment to the objector by the party by wh