Consequences of Not Paying Costs Under Section 35B CPC

In the intricate world of civil litigation in India, adhering to court orders is paramount. One such critical directive often arises under Section 35B of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, which addresses costs imposed for causing delays. But what happens if a party fails to pay these costs? The question Consequences of Not Paying Cost under Section 35b Cpc is a common concern for litigants facing procedural hurdles. This blog post delves into the implications, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory provisions to provide clarity.

Typically, non-payment can lead to severe procedural setbacks, but courts exercise discretion. Understanding these consequences helps parties navigate cases effectively. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

Overview of Section 35B CPC

Section 35B CPC empowers courts to impose costs on parties causing delays, such as seeking adjournments without sufficient cause. These costs must be paid on the next date of hearing as a condition precedent for further prosecuting the suit or defense. The provision aims to expedite proceedings and compensate the affected party, not to punish. As highlighted in judicial interpretations, Section 35B deals with costs for causing delay in proceedings. The costs are not punitive but serve to compensate the other party for delays caused by the defaulting party. Mamo Devi VS Ajmer Singh - Punjab and HaryanaSIPRA ROY AND ANR vs SANDHYA ROY CHOUDHURY - Calcutta

The Supreme Court has elaborated on this, noting that payment is mandatory unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. Failure to comply triggers specific repercussions outlined in the CPC.

Key Consequences of Non-Payment

Non-compliance with Section 35B orders isn't taken lightly. Here are the primary outcomes:

1. Forfeiture of Right to Prosecute or Defend:
2. The most direct consequence is the forfeiture of the right to further prosecute the suit or continue the defense. This effectively bars the defaulting party from participating further. For instance, Failure to pay the costs results in the forfeiture of the right to further prosecute the suit or defense. Manohar Singh VS D. S. Sharma - Supreme CourtGodrej Consumer Products Limited VS Dabur India Limited - Delhi

3. Courts have struck off defenses in such cases, as seen where the plaintiff was not entitled to prosecute its suit without paying the costs imposed upon it. Parkland Properties Ltd. VS New Rajput Cooperative Group Housing Society - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1918 - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1918

4. Court's Discretionary Powers:

5. While strict, courts may extend time for payment under Section 148 CPC, but only in exceptional cases. The court has the discretion to extend the time for payment of costs under Section 148 CPC, but such extensions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Shana Auto Laser Pvt. Ltd. VS Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-III - MadrasHANUMAN MAL BOTHRA VS SURAJ MAL JAIN - Delhi

6. Routine extensions are discouraged, especially when costs target delay tactics. Courts have the discretion to extend the time for paying costs under Section 148 CPC, and non-payment does not necessarily mean proceedings are automatically barred. Sahiram VS Yadram - Punjab and HaryanaSIPRA ROY AND ANR vs SANDHYA ROY CHOUDHURY - Calcutta

7. Alternative Procedural Remedies:

8. Instead of outright dismissal, courts may close cross-examination of witnesses and proceed without the defaulting party's input. Instead of dismissing the suit for non-payment of costs, the court may close the cross-examination of witnesses and prohibit the defaulting party from further prosecuting the suit. Manohar Singh VS D. S. Sharma - Supreme CourtParas Ram VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh

9. This allows the case to continue on existing evidence, severely disadvantaging the non-compliant party.

10. Inclusion of Costs in Final Decree:

11. Unpaid costs can be embedded in the decree for later recovery. If costs are not paid, they can be included as costs awarded under the decree, which means that the unpaid costs can still be recovered. MADHUKAR s/o GOPALRAO NAPHADE VS GWALDAS s/o NATHMALI LADDHA - Bombay

12. Even if the suit is dismissed, the entitled party retains recovery rights.

13. Judicial Precedents and Strict Enforcement:

14. The Supreme Court views non-payment seriously: The Supreme Court has emphasized that non-payment of costs is a serious matter, and the consequences are clearly outlined in the CPC. Cantonment Board, Ferozepur Cantt VS Ravi Kumar Soi - Punjab and Haryana
15. In one case, a suit was dismissed for non-payment, deemed perfect in the eyes of law cited above on Section 35B of the Code. SOHN SINGH vs DILDAR SINGH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7522 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7522
16. However, consequences aren't automatic; courts assess circumstances. Failure to pay costs under Section 35B does not automatically dismiss a suit but can lead to consequences like striking off defence. SIPRA ROY AND ANR vs SANDHYA ROY CHOUDHURY - CalcuttaSIPRA ROY AND ANR vs SANDHYA ROY CHOUDHURY - Calcutta

Purpose and Nature of Section 35B Costs

These costs differ from punitive fines under Sections 35A (vexatious claims) or general costs under Section 35. They specifically target delays: The primary aim is to discourage unnecessary delays and ensure timely prosecution of cases. The costs are meant to be a genuine expense incurred, not a penalty. Mamo Devi VS Ajmer Singh - Punjab and HaryanaCHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s SIJU SAUKA KANJIBHAI MINOR THROUGH URMILABEN KANJBHAI HARIJAN (SIJU) - Gujarat

Courts clarify that when the cost of Rs.1500/- was imposed and making it a condition precedent, such cost fall within the meaning of Section 35B of the CPC. MD. SAFIQUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA VS AJOY KUMAR DEY - 2017 Supreme(Gau) 665 - 2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 665

Impact on Proceedings and Discretion

Non-payment typically results in striking off the defense or procedural restrictions, but not always dismissal. When costs are levied under Section 35B, payment on the next date of hearing is a condition precedent for the continuation of proceedings. Failure to pay can result in the defence being struck off or the suit being dismissed, but the effect is not automatic. SIPRA ROY AND ANR vs SANDHYA ROY CHOUDHURY - CalcuttaRajendra Kumar Tiwari vs Mahendra Kumar Tiwari - Madhya Pradesh

Judges consider reasons for default, but intent for adjournment is irrelevant. Extensions are granted judiciously to prevent abuse.

Practical Recommendations for Litigants

To avoid these pitfalls:- Pay Promptly: Deposit costs on the next hearing date to safeguard rights.- Seek Extension Judiciously: File under Section 148 CPC with strong justification, like financial hardship.- Prepare Alternatives: Anticipate proceedings without your full participation if payment lags.- Understand Caps: Note that Section 35B may cap costs (e.g., discussions on limits vs. Section 35). VIJAY SINGH Vs SMT. JYOTI YADAV - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 32351 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 32351

Moreover explanation to Section 35B CPC makes it clear that, payment of such costs imposed under Section 35B is a condition precedent for further prosecution. V. Veeresh VS Chiloth Kumari - 2010 Supreme(AP) 1081 - 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 1081

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Failing to pay costs under Section 35B CPC can jeopardize your case through forfeiture, restricted participation, or adverse orders. While courts hold discretion, compliance is key to smooth proceedings. Key takeaways:- Payment is a condition precedent; non-payment risks striking off defense or closure of evidence.- Discretion exists for extensions, but not routinely.- Costs recoverable via decree even post-dismissal.- Purpose: Compensate delays, not punish.

Stay proactive in litigation to honor court orders. For tailored advice, engage a legal professional.

References: Inline citations from precedents including Manohar Singh VS D. S. Sharma - Supreme Court, Godrej Consumer Products Limited VS Dabur India Limited - Delhi, Shana Auto Laser Pvt. Ltd. VS Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-III - Madras, Paras Ram VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh, MADHUKAR s/o GOPALRAO NAPHADE VS GWALDAS s/o NATHMALI LADDHA - Bombay, Cantonment Board, Ferozepur Cantt VS Ravi Kumar Soi - Punjab and Haryana, SOHN SINGH vs DILDAR SINGH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7522 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7522, Parkland Properties Ltd. VS New Rajput Cooperative Group Housing Society - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1918 - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1918, SIPRA ROY AND ANR vs SANDHYA ROY CHOUDHURY - Calcutta, and others noted.