Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Trial courts should not impose penal costs solely for setting aside no cross orders or ex parte decrees, especially when the setting aside is justified by proper reasons or procedural lapses. Imposing such costs can be viewed as punitive rather than procedural facilitation ["Shashikant s/o Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay"].
Courts have the discretion to impose costs as a condition for allowing cross-examination or setting aside ex parte orders; however, these costs should not be excessive or punitive. For instance, a cost of Rs. 5,000 or Rs. 2,000 was deemed reasonable in some cases ["Madhusudan VS Chandarlal - Madhya Pradesh"] ["K. Palaniswamy VS Ganesa Finance Corporation, Erode, represented by Managing Partner, L. Selvarasu - Madras"].
The main principle emphasized is that procedural orders, including costs, are meant to facilitate justice, not to penalize parties unjustly. Heavy penal costs for setting aside no cross orders or ex parte decrees are generally considered unwarranted ["Shashikant s/o Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay"] ["Madhusudan VS Chandarlal - Madhya Pradesh"].
Several judgments highlight that courts can set aside costs imposed as conditions for setting aside orders if such costs are deemed excessive or unjustified. For example, the High Court set aside a Rs. 1 lakh cost when it was found unnecessary ["Amit Jain VS Canara Bank - Delhi"].
The courts recognize their discretionary power to impose costs, but they should exercise this power judiciously, ensuring that costs serve the purpose of justice rather than punishment. Excessive costs for setting aside procedural orders are typically discouraged ["Sipra Roy vs Sandhya Roy Choudhury - Calcutta"] ["M. Kasim Vali VS E. Guru Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"].
In summary, the trial court should avoid penal costs for setting aside no cross orders, especially when the setting aside is justified or procedural lapses are involved. The emphasis is on balancing procedural discipline with fairness, and penal costs should not be used as a punitive measure ["Shashikant s/o Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay"].
References:["Shashikant s/o Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra - Bombay"]["Amit Jain VS Canara Bank - Delhi"]["Madhusudan VS Chandarlal - Madhya Pradesh"]["Sipra Roy vs Sandhya Roy Choudhury - Calcutta"]["M. Kasim Vali VS E. Guru Reddy - Andhra Pradesh"]
In the intricate world of civil litigation, parties often seek to set aside procedural orders—such as those closing cross-examination (commonly called 'no cross orders') or ex-parte decrees—to ensure a fair trial. But should a trial court slap penal costs on a party simply for succeeding in such a request? The question arises: should the trial court impose penal costs for setting aside a no cross order?
This blog delves into the legal nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). While courts wield discretion to impose costs, doing so arbitrarily for justified actions undermines justice. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Trial courts generally have discretion to impose costs for delays or misconduct, but penal costs specifically for setting aside orders—especially when justified and in the interest of justice—are not warranted. Penal costs aim to compensate for misconduct or deliberate delay, not penalize lawful proceedings. Sitaram Fabrication VS Italiya Silk Mill - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1477Manohar Singh VS D. S. Sharma - 2009 7 Supreme 357
Courts emphasize proportionality: costs should match actual harm caused, not serve as punishment for seeking substantive justice. For instance, penal costs are meant to compensate for misconduct or deliberate delay, not to penalize lawful setting aside of orders. Sitaram Fabrication VS Italiya Silk Mill - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1477
Under CPC provisions like Order IX Rule 13 (setting aside ex-parte decrees) and Order XVIII Rule 17 (recalling witnesses), courts balance efficiency and equity. They may impose costs to deter frivolous moves, but not for meritorious ones.
The court shall have the power to... condone such non-compliance by payment of costs. Sitaram Fabrication VS Italiya Silk Mill - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1477 This underscores costs as a tool for case management, not retribution.
In cases involving no-cross orders, where evidence closure prevents cross-examination, courts often set aside such orders if sufficient cause exists—like illness or unavoidable absence—without heavy penal burdens. For example, one judgment notes the court ought to have closed the evidence of DW2, permitted the defendants to produce any further evidence... and then ought to have proceeded to dispose of the suit on merits, favoring justice over penalties. Ramon Services Private LTD. VS Subhash Kapoor - 2000 7 Supreme 569
Penal costs are fitting for frivolous applications or undue delays, but not routine for set-asides. Costs are primarily meant to compensate for misconduct or unnecessary delay, not to penalize the party for lawful or justified proceedings. GAYATHRI VS M. GIRISH - 2016 6 Supreme 99
Several precedents illustrate this:- In an appeal under Order 9 Rule 13, the court set aside an ex-parte decree due to the defendant's illness, imposing only a modest Rs. 5,000 cost as a condition to participate in trial—compensatory, not penal. Madhusudan VS Chandarlal And Ors. - 2000 Supreme(MP) 95- Another High Court deemed a 50% suit claim deposit condition onerous when setting aside an order, stressing leniency for sufficient cause. K. Palaniswamy VS Ganesa Finance Corporation, Erode - 2001 Supreme(Mad) 527- Courts must adopt a liberal and sensitive approach for ex-parte set-asides, balancing defendant rights with plaintiff interests, often with nominal costs. Yusuf Hussain @ Guddu S/o Tafazzul Hussain Zaidi VS Sabra Begum W/o Tafazzul Hussain Zaidi - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 870
Even in criminal contexts, like under CrPC Section 306, state costs require proven non-compliance, not automatic levy for revisions. Mohottige Chaminda Lalith Kumara vs Officer in Charge. Police Station Weeraketiya & Hon. Attorney General - 2025 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 326
Conversely, costs are upheld for blatant delays: The trial Court rightly rejected the subsequent prayer for setting aside the order of imposing of the said cost, where parties ignored directions despite illness claims without proof. Niharendu Bhuyan VS State of Orissa - 2005 Supreme(Ori) 596NIHARENDU BHUYAN VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2005 Supreme(Ori) 598
The Supreme Court echoes: costs compensate delays from misconduct, not lawful set-asides. GAYATHRI VS M. GIRISH - 2016 6 Supreme 99
Costs make sense in these scenarios:- Frivolous applications or bad-faith delays. GAYATHRI VS M. GIRISH - 2016 6 Supreme 99- Repeated adjournments without cause, e.g., unproven illness. K G MADHUSUDHAN vs V K JAGADEESHA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39935- Non-compliance with evidence recording, like missing PW cross-examination. K G MADHUSUDHAN vs V K JAGADEESHA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39935
Trial courts may impose further costs for unnecessary adjournments, but always proportionately. K G MADHUSUDHAN vs V K JAGADEESHA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39935
Courts must avoid penalizing justified actions. The object of Order 9 Civil Procedure Code is not penal in nature. Ujjwal Kesari VS Krishna Gupta - 2010 Supreme(MP) 650 Imposing costs solely for set-asides without misconduct lacks support. In one case, even after rejecting an application, courts refrained from excessive penalties to uphold natural justice. Ketayun Stedman VS Rajasthan State Electricity Board - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 3154
Encourage procedural adherence without chilling legitimate remedies.
In summary, trial courts should not impose penal costs merely for setting aside a no cross order or similar, particularly if justified. Legal frameworks and precedents—from CPC Order 9 Rule 13 to diverse judgments—advocate discretion favoring substantive justice. Sitaram Fabrication VS Italiya Silk Mill - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1477Manohar Singh VS D. S. Sharma - 2009 7 Supreme 357GAYATHRI VS M. GIRISH - 2016 6 Supreme 99
Stay informed, but seek professional advice tailored to your situation. For more on CPC procedures, explore our blog.
References:1. Sitaram Fabrication VS Italiya Silk Mill - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1477 – Case management and condonation via costs.2. Manohar Singh VS D. S. Sharma - 2009 7 Supreme 357 – Compensatory costs for ex-parte set-asides.3. GAYATHRI VS M. GIRISH - 2016 6 Supreme 99 – Costs for misconduct, not lawful actions.4. Additional cases: Madhusudan VS Chandarlal And Ors. - 2000 Supreme(MP) 95, K. Palaniswamy VS Ganesa Finance Corporation, Erode - 2001 Supreme(Mad) 527, Yusuf Hussain @ Guddu S/o Tafazzul Hussain Zaidi VS Sabra Begum W/o Tafazzul Hussain Zaidi - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 870, NIHARENDU BHUYAN VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2005 Supreme(Ori) 598.
#PenalCosts, #CPCLaw, #TrialCourt
The learned Court considering that, even after five years the witness is not being cross-examined, the learned Court again passed no cross order for third time at 3.30 p.m. On that day, even application for adjournment was not filed, neither an application was filed for setting aside no cross order. ... The accused facing trial for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
Appellant is further seeking setting aside of cost of Rs.1 lac imposed upon him vide the aforesaid order dated 10.11.2022. 3. ... Learned counsel for appellant submits that he presses this appeal qua prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 10.11.2022 only to the extent whereby cost of Rs.1 lac was imposed upon the appellant. 4. ... In view of submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1, as admitted by him that copy of notice was duly serv....
16) It is important to note that the learned High Court Judge in his Order dated 27.06.2024, has mentioned that, for the Magistrate to impose a State cost under section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “CCPA”), the Accused should not ... 5) Thereafter, the Petitioner made an application in revision to the High Court of Tangalle seeking to have the learned Magistrate’s Order set aside and a State co....
I, however, impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on defendant (appellant) to be deposited in the trial Court as a condition to participate in the trial. ... By impugned Order the trial Court refused to set aside the decree and rejected the application holding that the cause shown in the application does not constitute sufficient cause so as to entitle the Court to set aside the decree. .....
I, however, impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on defendant (appellant) to be deposited in the trial Court as a condition to participate in the trial. ... By impugned Order the trial Court refused to set aside the decree and rejected the application holding that the cause shown in the application does not constitute sufficient cause so as to entitle the Court to set aside the decree. .....
This court does not find that imposition of the cost by the learned trial judge as a condition to cross-examine the PW-1, to be an unreasonable one warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ... He further submits that cross- examination could not be made as the learned advocate was not available and the learned trial judge, though allowed the prayer for cross-examination of PW-1, impos....
Having found a justified reason for setting aside the ex parte decree, the learned trial Court set aside the ex parte decree. ... It does not even show whether the witness was tendered for cross-examination or not. ... Since Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. empowers the Court to set aside ex parte decree upon such terms as to costs, the learned trial Court directed the d....
According to him as per the brochure any delayed payment either towards the EMD or the cost of the plot, the OPs have got right to impose the penal interest. ... Rest part of the impugned order would remain unaltered. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly and the cross objection is dismissed as not pressed. No cost. DFR be sent back forthwith. ... So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 8. ... L....
The trial Court is at liberty to impose further cost for unnecessary adjournments, if any, taken by any of the parties. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. ... However, the trial Court not being satisfied with the explanation provided for delay and non cross-examination of PW.1, rejected the application by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/-. 4.....
The C.R.P. is allowed and the order of the trial Court directing the defendant to deposit 50% of the suit claim is set aside. ... The trial Court has held that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was unwell. However, the trial Court was not prepared to dismiss the petition. ... If the conditional order is complied with, when the trial Court#HL_E....
In case, an exparte decree has been passed against the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, a right has been given to the defendant to seek setting aside of the ex-parte decree provided sufficient cause for his absence is placed before the court. The court is further empowered to impose cost as it thinks fit before setting aside the ex-parte decree. While setting aside an ex-parte decree, the court has to balance the conflicting interest of the defendant as he has a right to be heard, and to the plaintiff who has a right to claim that the case has been finally decid....
The object of Order 9 Civil Procedure Code is not penal in nature and Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code specifically provides a good cause for setting aside ex-parte order, then the trial Court ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter in setting aside the ex-parte order. The subject -matter of the case is election petition in which substantial rights of the petitioner, who is a returned candidate are involved and in these circumstances, the trial Court ought to have set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.2.2010 on the application filed by the petitioner on 25.2.2....
Order 9 Rule 13 grants ample power to the trial Court to impose cost on the defendant, while setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Hence, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the defendant. The said power could have been invoked by the learned Judge.
So the imposition of cost cannot be said to be illegal or exorbitant. He further submitted that the accused was specifically directed to appear on the last date for recording their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Instead of complying that order, they filed a petition for adjournment of the case on the ground of illness. The trial Court rightly rejected the subsequent prayer for setting aside the order of imposing of the said cost.
So the imposition of cost cannot be said to be illegal or exorbitant. The trial Court rightly rejected the subsequent prayer for setting aside the order of imposing of the said cost. He further submitted that the accused was specifically directed to appear on the last date for recording their statement under Section 313 of cr. P. C. Instead of complying that order, they filed a petition for adjournment of the case on the ground of illness.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
