Delhi District Court
Durgesh Singhal vs Vishal Gupta on 30 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 02
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presiding Officer - Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS.
RCA DJ No. 103/2024
CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024
In the matter of:-
Smt. Durgesh Singhal
W/o Late Sh. S.K. Singhal,
R/o 327,Prakash Gali, Teliwara,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi - 110006.
...................... Appellant
Versus
1. Vishal Gupta & Ors.
S/o Sh. R.S. Gupta,
R/o 375, Mahavir Bazar,
Teliwara, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi - 06.
2. Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner,
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukharjee Marg,
Minto Road, New Delhi.
(City Sadar Paharganj Zone)
3. Station House Officer
P.S. Bara Hindu Rao,
Delhi - 110006.
...................... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.07.2024
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 24.04.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 30.04.2025
Judgment dated 30.04.2025
RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 1 of 18
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 15:56:25
Date: 2025.05.01
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The Court is rendering this judgment to dispose of an appeal filed by Smt. Durgesh Singhal against the Order dated 04.06.2024 passed by Ld. ASCJ, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in a suit bearing No. CS SCJ 1077/2023 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'impugned order') whereby the plaint of the plaintiff was rejected alongwith the compensatory cost of ₹. 3,00,000/- which was to be paid to the defendants no.1 and 2 (1 Lac each) and ₹.1 Lac to PM Relief Fund, in equal proportions. Besides the appeal two misc. applications, firstly, under Order XLI Rule 5 for granting the stay and secondly, under Section 151 for seeking exemption from filing of the certified copies of the impugned order have also been filed by the appellant.
The appellant is the original plaintiff, and the respondents are the original defendants. The parties shall be referred to by the names listed in the original suit for the purposes of convenience and clarity.
Background facts of the case (In brief)
2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for seeking reliefs of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction. The plaintiff sought a decree of Permanent Injunction against the defendant no. 1 so that he may be restrained from raising illegal and unauthorised construction in the property bearing no. 323 Prakash Gali, Teliwara, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-06 (hereinafter Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 2 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:56:32 +0530 to be referred to as 'Suit Property'). Plaintiff also sought a decree of Mandatory Injunction against the defendants no. 2 & 3 by which they may be restrained from raising any illegal and unauthorised construction in the suit property and to demolish the same.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has averred before the Ld. Trial Court that as the defendant no.1 demolishing and constructing the property bearing no. 327, Prakash Gali, Teliwara, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-06, which is adjacent to the suit property, which had not only obstructed the public way but the dust had caused problem to the plaintiff. With these averments plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants.
Proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court
4. The defendants had filed their written statement before the Ld. Trial Court and refuted all the allegations of the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants and sought the dismissal of the of the suit. Moreover, also the ground of the non- service of the statutory notice as -provided under Section 477-478 of the MCD Act alongwith the ground of the non-joinder of the necessary party was taken by the defendants as the owner of the property bearing no. 327, Prakash Gali, Teliwara, Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 3 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.01 15:56:39 +0530 Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-06, did not implead as a party to the suit.
Grounds of appeal
5. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has taken many legal and factual objections against the impugned order. During the arguments it has been submitted that the plaintiff does not wish to contest the appeal on facts but it should only be considered upto the extent of the aspect of the waiver or reduction of the cost which has been imposed in the impugned order.
Reply to the appeal by the defendants
6. The Ld. Counsel for the defendants have Instead of filing any reply straight away address arguments against the claims as made in the appeal.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties
7. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the appeal may be treated upto the extent of the aspect of waiver or reduction of costs only. It has been argued that as per the provisions of CPC no court may imposed compensatory costs more than ₹.3,000/- in total, therefore order of imposition of ₹.3,00,000/- as costs is not legally Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 4 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:56:48 +0530 tenable. Moreover, in the impugned order the Ld. Trial Court did not hold that the suit of the plaintiff was vexatious or false per se. Per-contra Ld. Counsel for the defendants have argued that the cost was rightly imposed by the Ld. Trial Court, as the suit was filed to compensate the defendants as the without having an iota of cause of action and on the basis of the wrong facts.
Analysis and Conclusion
8. The perusal of the impugned order provides that the plaintiff has filed the suit without any cause of action. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced here as under, in verbatim "In the present case, the plaintiff does not even fall within the category of a neighbour. No damage has been caused to the property of the plaintiff. There are no infringements of easementary rights of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. The cause of action of the plaintiff is only a fanciful cause of action. It appears that the present suit has been filed for ulterior motives and the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC.
Plaintiff is also burdened with the costs of Rs. 3 Lacs out of which, defendant No.1 and 2 shall be paid Rs. 1 Lac each and cost of Rs. 1 lac be deposited with PM Relief Fund."
9. Perusal of the impugned order, site plan of the suit property and pleadings. It is evident that house of the plaintiff was not adjacent to the suit property and it was pleaded wrongly by the plaintiff. Moreover, non-joinder of Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 5 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:56:57 +0530 the owner of the suit property in the suit is also fatal for the suit of the plaintiff. Since in the absence of the owner of the property no effective and final relief could have been provided to the plaintiff. Be that as it may, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that apart from imposition of costs plaintiff is not willing to challenge the impugned order on merits. Therefore, keeping in view the abovementioned facts of the case and arguments led by the respective Ld. Counsel for the parties, the points for which requires adjudication are as under, "Whether the impugned order runs against the legal framework operating in and principles related to aspect of the imposition of the cost, hence it is legally not tenable and warrants any interference of this Court?"
10. At the outset, the most important and relevant provision for the purpose of the present appeal is Section 35A of CPC, which empowers the courts to impose compensatory costs on a party which has filed false and vexatious claim or defence. The same is reproduced for reference, "35A. [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] [Substituted by Act 66 of 1956, Section 4, for certain words. ], may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 6 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:57:04 +0530 vexatious, make an order for the payment to the objector by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of costs by way of compensation.
(2) No Court shall make any such order for the payment of an amount exceeding [three thousand rupees] [ Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 14, for " one thousand rupees" (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).] or exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less:
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has heavily relied upon the Section 35A CPC which categorically provides the outer limit of ₹.3,000/- or upto the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court whichever is less, for the imposition of the compensatory costs. In the present appeal the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court is of ₹.3,00,000/- which is more than the outer limit of ₹.3,000/- as provided by the Section 35A CPC. and therefore, it was argued by the plaintiff that the Ld. Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and imposed the cost of amount which is much beyond its competence. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the defendants has refuted the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and argued that when the court has reached on a conclusion that suit is baseless and false then the court should have obtained a pragmatic approach and thus relevant cost may be imposed by the virtue of Section 151 CPC.
12. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has based his arguments on the para 7 and 8 of the judgment of the Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 7 of 18 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.01 15:57:11 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as 'Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors, 2009 INSC 12, 2009 SCC 2 656' (para-7 and 8) where it has been held that Courts do not have jurisdiction in case of suits under the CPC to impose costs on any party beyond the limit prescribed under the CPC.
"7. One view has been that the provisions of Sections 35 and 35-A CPC do not in any way affect the wide discretion vested in the High Court in exercise of its inherent power to award costs in the interests of justice in appropriate civil cases. The more sound view however is that though award of costs is within the discretion of the Court, it is subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force; and where the issue is governed and regulated by Sections 35 and 35-A of the Code, there is no question of exercising inherent power contrary to the specific provisions of the Code.
8. Further, the provisions of Section 35-A seem to suggest that even where a suit or litigation is vexatious, the outer limit of exemplary costs that can be awarded, in addition to regular costs, shall not exceed Rs 3000. It is also to be noted that huge costs of the order of rupees fifty thousand or rupees one lakh, are normally awarded only in writ proceedings and public interest litigations, and not in civil litigation to which Sections 35 and 35-A are applicable. The principles and practices relating to levy of costs in administrative law matters cannot be imported mechanically in relation to civil litigation governed by the Code."
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted, the same has also been reiterated in the judgment tilted as 'Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors, 2011 INSC 755, 2012 ALR 90 480' (para-7) in which it was held that the order of the High Court awarding heavy Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 8 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:57:17 +0530 costs was unsustainable in light of the existing provisions of CPC read with the Delhi High Court Rules.
14. It is relevant to mention here the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court titled as 'N. Hiriyan V.B. Siva Kumar, 2014 LW 4 812' (para 26, and 28 to 32), wherein the entire sphere of the Section 35 and 35A have been discussed and explained in great detail. The abovementioned paragraphs are reproduced here as under, "26. Substantial Question of Law 4 :
The fourth substantial question of law raised in the second appeal is regarding the compensatory costs awarded by the trial Court under Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, that was confirmed by the appellate court. It is well settled that under Section 35A CPC, the Court can impose compensatory costs on the plaintiff or the defendant, when there is vexatious claim made by a party to the suit.
28. The scope of Section 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 and Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr, (2009) 2 SCC 656 and Vinod Seth v.
Devender Bajaj & Anr, (2010) 8 SCC 1.
29. In Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows :
"Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded on the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to taking up of frivolous defences. Further wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 9 of 18 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.01 15:57:24 +0530 reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the Court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons thereof. The costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental cost besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other cost in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate courts to follow."
30. In Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:
"One view has been that the provisions of Sections 35 and 35A CPC do not in any way affect the wide discretion vested in by High Court in exercise of its inherent power to award costs in the interests of justice in appropriate civil cases. The more sound view however is that though award of costs is within the discretion of the court, it is subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force; and where the issue is governed and regulated by Sections 35 and 35A of the Code, there is no question of exercising inherent power contrary to the specific provisions of the Code. Further, the provisions of Section 35A seems to suggest that even where a suit or litigation is vexatious, the outer limit of exemplary costs that can be awarded in addition to regular costs, shall not exceed Rs. 3000/-. It is also to be noted that huge costs of the order of Rs. Fifty thousand or Rs. One lakh, are normally awarded only in writ proceedings and public interest litigations, and not in civil litigation to which Sections 35 and 35A are applicable. The principles and practices relating to levy of costs in administrative law matters cannot be imported mechanically in relation to civil litigation governed by the Code."
31. In Vinod Seth v. Devender Bajaj & Anr, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
"23. The provision for costs is intended to achieve the following goals : (a) It should act as a deterrent Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 10 of 18 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.01 15:57:31 +0530 to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence. (b) Costs should ensure that the provisions of the Code, Evidence Act and other laws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and that parties do not adopt delaying tactics or mislead the court. (c) Costs should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation. This necessitates the award of actual costs of litigation as contrasted from nominal or fixed or unrealistic costs. (d) The provision for costs should be an incentive for each litigant to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and arrive at a settlement before the trial commences in most of the cases.
32. It has been made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court that compensatory cost could be imposed under Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to make a deterrent effect against filing of vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations. It is the discretion of the Court to decree a suit or dismiss the same with costs or without costs, however, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Awarding costs should ensure that the provisions of the Code, Evidence Act and other laws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and that the parties do not adopt delaying tactics or mislead the court. Similarly, the court should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by him towards the litigation. It was also held in the decision in Vinod Seth v. Devender Bajaj and Anr., (Referred to above) that provisions relating to the compensatory cost (Section 35 A of the Code) in respect of false or vexatious claims or defence has become virtually infructuous or ineffective, on account of inflation. Under the said section, awarding of compensatory cost, in case of false and vexatious litigation was subject to a ceiling of Rs.3,000/. However, it was made clear that the same requires a realistic revision keeping in view, the observations in Salem Advocates Bar Association (Supra). It is also relevant to consider that lack of appropriate provisions relating to costs has resulted in a steady increase in malicious, vexatious, false, frivolous and speculative suits, apart from increase in docket explosion, making the object of Section 89 of the Code ineffective. As held by the Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 11 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:57:39 +0530 Hon'ble Apex Court, any attempt to reduce the pendency or encourage Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes or to streamline the civil justice system will fail, in the absence of not using the appropriate provisions relating to costs, as the same should discourage maintaining false and vexatious litigations."
15. Impugned order reveals that in the present case the plaintiff has averred wrong facts in the plaint and also failed to implead the owner of the suit property in the suit and therefore, the Ld. Trial Court has reached on a conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff filed for ulterior motives and nothing but an abuse of the process of the law. The claim of the plaintiff being living in the adjacent to the suit property has miserably failed to stand upon its own legs and the Court had no hesitation to hold that the claim of the plaintiff was devoid of any material substance or credibility.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as 'Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 (para-45 and 52(C)' the Supreme Court has held that the courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic in imposing the costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"45.... We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong doers are denied profit or undue benefits from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Courts otherwise Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 12 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:57:52 +0530 scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases."
"52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed ? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial Courts while dealing with the civil trials.
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings..."
17. An umpteen number of times the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held that not only the heavy cost should be imposed in the appropriate cases but also prosecution be ordered to curb the propensity of filing frivolous cases. Reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as 'Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Through, LRs .& Ors, AIR 2012 SC 1727 (para-84 and 85)' wherein it was held that, "84. False claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If progmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent."
Judgment dated 30.04.2025
RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 13 of 18
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.01
15:57:58 +0530
"85. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. (supra) aptly that unless wrong doers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/ or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false p leadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings...."
18. In the light of the above referred to judgments it is lucid that the Hon'ble Courts are of the specific view that in order to curb the propensity of filing frivolous litigations the court should have approached a pragmatic approach and imposed appropriate cost not only to compensate the other parties but also to create a deterrent for the parties who instituted cases without any substance.
19. Further, reliance may be placed on the judgment titled as 'Praveen Saini vs Reetu Kapur & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6500 (para- 18 and 23)' wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the appeal imposed a Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 14 of 18 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.01 15:58:06 +0530 cost of ₹.10,00,000/- the relevant portion of the same is reproduced here as under, "18. ... (i) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,00,000/-. Costs shall be paid by the appellant/defendant within a period of six weeks from today. I am entitled to impose actual cost by virtue of provision Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule 15 read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others (2011) 8 SCC 249. Out of the total costs of Rs.10,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- will be paid by the appellant/defendant to the respondents/plaintiffs including by noting that the trial court has not awarded any costs in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellant/defendant. The balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
will be deposited by the appellant/defendant with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within a period of six weeks from today.
(ii) I may note that the power to impose costs in terms of Section 35 CPC is on account of costs incurred by a party, but there is no provision in CPC for imposition of costs on a person for initiating a completely false litigation and claim, abusing the process of law and causing gross wastage of judicial time. With respect to the abuse of judicial process and with respect to filing of false claims since the issue is not covered by Section 35 CPC, the same would therefore be covered by Section 151 CPC under the inherent powers of this Court. I have, therefore, imposed costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be deposited with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 151 CPC.
20. The mandate of the abovementioned judgments are guiding this Court in the direction that costs which are imposed under Section 35 and 35A CPC are given in favour of a party to the litigation and imposing of costs for abuse of judicial process and misleading the Court will be governed by the provision of Section 151 CPC and not by Section 35 or 35A CPC. Moreover, the Ld. Trial Court has Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 15 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:58:14 +0530 categorically mentioned that the case was filed with ulterior motives and on the basis of the wrong averments. It is also pertinent to mention that the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was only argued on the aspect of the costs and choose not to address arguments on the other legal and factual grounds against the impugned order, therefore, in the essence the findings of the Ld. Trial Court has attained the finality.
21. Even in the Judgment of the Ram Kumar Gupta (Supra) which was relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff the Supreme Court did not waive the costs of ₹.2,00,000/- but after validating the imposition of costs merely directed the payment of cost to State Government instead of DSLSA. The Judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi (Supra) was referred to and its findings was approved by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of 'Maria Margardia (supra)' wherein it was held that in the appropriate circumstances heavy costs may be imposed.
22. It is evident that the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order clearly gave its findings regarding the frivolous nature of the suit and the abuse of the process of law by the plaintiff, which have not been challenged (as per the oral submissions) in appeal. Therefore, keeping in view the law as laid down in the above mentioned judgments this court is of the considered opinion that the order of the Ld. Trial Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 16 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:58:21 +0530 Court is absolutely correct and not suffered from any illegality.
23. However, since the plaintiff is an aged women and it has not come on record that she is habitual litigant or who has filed multiple frivilous cases against the same or other persons. It is also pertinent to mention that the suit was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court in its very inception and hence, much judicial time and resources was not wasted in the adjudication of the suit. Ergo, this court is of the considered opinion that the cost of ₹.3,00,000/- which is required to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 & 2 and also to PM Relief Fund in equal proportions is reduced to ₹. 30,000/- out of which ₹.20,000/- shall be paid to defendants no. 1 and 2 in equal proportions and similarly, the direction for deposit of the Cost of ₹ 1,00,000/ - in PM Relief Fund is also reduced to ₹.10,000/-.
24. Accordingly, the question framed above for adjudication is answers in negative. Thus, this Court is allowing the present RCA partly. Except the aspect of costs the other part of the impugned order shall hereby confirmed.
25. It is noteworthy to mention that the plaintiff is directed to deposit the costs within 30 days from the pronouncement of the judgment in the appeal and if plaintiff fails to comply with the mandate of the present judgment then, then the Appeal of the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 17 of 18 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:58:31 +0530 dismissed and the impugned Judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 shall deemed to be confirmed without any modifications for all intents and purposes. Furthermore, the applications under Order XLI Rule 5 for granting the stay and the another application under Section 151 CPC for seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the impugned order filed by the appellant are hereby disposed of being infructuous.
26. No order as to costs in the present appeal.
27. The copy of this Judgment may kindly be sent forthwith to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith the copy of the order of this Court.
28. Appeal file shall be consigned to the record room.
29. Decree-sheet in the Appeal be prepared accordingly, in terms of this Judgment.
Digitally signedSANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.01 15:58:39 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma) on 30.04.2025 DJ-02/CENTRAL/THC/DELHI Judgment dated 30.04.2025 RCA DJ No. 103/2024 CNR No.DLCT01-010097-2024 Durgesh Singhal Vs Vishal Gupta & Ors. Page No. 18 of 18