Recently, the Gujarat High Court partly allowed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the imposition of a cost of ₹25,000 by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and held that while courts have the authority to impose costs to prevent frivolous litigation, such costs must be reasonable and not create a barrier to the litigant’s right to file an appeal.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Ramsingbhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati, filed the present petition under Article 227, seeking to quash and set aside the cost imposed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand, in Civil Misc. Application No. 91 of 2021. The order, dated 04.07.2023, imposed a cost of ₹25,000, payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Anand, after dismissing the petitioner’s review application. The review application was filed following the dismissal of the petitioner’s suit, based on legal advice. The petitioner argued that the cost was excessive and that the trial court had not recorded any findings indicating misconduct or vexatious intent. Due to the non-payment of this cost, the District Court registry refused to accept the petitioner’s appeal, effectively barring him from pursuing legal remedies.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the imposition of costs was unreasonable and disproportionate. He contended that the trial court did not make any observations that the review application was vexatious, fraudulent, or filed with malicious intent. The petitioner submitted that the mere dismissal of a review application should not automatically warrant a penalty in the form of excessive costs.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court was well within its jurisdiction to impose costs to discourage unnecessary litigation. It was contended that the petitioner had already availed of the review mechanism and failed to establish any valid grounds for reconsideration. The respondents emphasized that judicial time had been consumed in deciding a meritless application, and thus, the imposition of costs was justified.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined the impugned order and noted that while the review application was rejected on merit, the trial court did not record any finding that the application was vexatious or filed with mala fide intent. The Court acknowledged that while courts have the authority to impose costs, such costs should be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that the imposition of costs should not serve as an undue barrier to a litigant’s right to appeal. The Court emphasized that judicial time should not be wasted on frivolous applications; however, a balance must be maintained to ensure that litigants are not discouraged from pursuing legitimate legal remedies.
The Court further observed that the District Court registry’s insistence on cost payment before accepting the appeal was not mandated by the impugned order and, therefore, should not obstruct the petitioner from filing an appeal. It was reiterated that appellate courts are competent to determine the necessity and quantum of costs, and such matters should not interfere with a litigant’s access to justice.
The decision of the Court:
The Gujarat High Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, modified the impugned order by reducing the cost from ₹25,000 to ₹15,000, to be paid by the petitioner to the District Legal Services Authority, Anand, within one month.
Case Title: Ramsingbhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati v. Dahyabhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat
Case No.:R/Special Civil Application No. 15942 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Nisarg J. Desai, Ms. Roma I. Fidelis
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Soham Joshi
Picture Source :
