Delhi High Court
Kawaljeet Singh vs Satpal Singh Kohli & Ors. on 25 November, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1047/2014
% 25th November, 2014
KAWALJEET SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Sahni, Advocate.
VERSUS
SATPAL SINGH KOHLI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.19406/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ C.M.(M) No.1047/2014 and C.M. No.19405/2014 (stay)
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
petitioner/plaintiff impugns the order of the trial court dated 9.10.2014 by
which costs of Rs.50,000/- were imposed upon the petitioner and in favour
of the defendants in view of the fact that defendants had suffered litigation
for around five years before the petitioner/plaintiff chose to withdraw the
suit. The impugned order reads as under:-
"Receipt regarding deposition of cost of Rs. 5000/- in
terms of order dated 17.09.2014 with Dwarka Court Bar Association
has been placed on record by the plaintiff. Matter was fixed for
filing of amended plaint and for arguments on the application under
Order 7 Rule 10 CPC as well as arguments on the maintainability of
the suit. However, it is submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff
does not wish to file any amended plaint as the plaintiff does not
wish to pursue the present suit against any of the defendants.
Plaintiff has sought permission of the court to withdraw the present
suit alongwith all pending applications including the
application under Order 39 Rules 2A read with Section 151 PC
and Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act against all the
defendants. Separate statement of the plaintiff to this effect
has been recorded. In view of the aforesaid statement of
the plaintiff, the present suit alongwith all pending
applications is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, in view of
provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (1) read with Rule 1 (4), the
defendants are entitled to the cost and in my considered opinion,
looking into the harassment which has been caused by the plaintiff to
the defendants in pursuing the present suit against them, the cost of
Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on the plaintiff to be paid to the defendants.
Since defendant no. 1 is facing trial in the present suit since the year
2009, he is entitled to a cost of Rs. 20,000/- whereas defendant nos. 2
& 3 who are facing the trial since the year 2011 are entitled to cost of
Rs. 15,000/- each. Aforesaid cost shall be paid by the plaintiff to the
defendants within a period of one month from today against proper
acknowledgment. In case the plaintiff fails to pay the aforesaid cost
within the aforesaid time period, the defendants shall be free to move
an application for execution of the order imposing cost against the
plaintiff as per law. With the disposal of the suit, all
pending applications, if any, have become infructuous and
accordingly are dismissed. Interim order/ stay, if any, stands
vacated. File be consigned to record room after due compliance."
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argues that actually
the suit was withdrawn under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) because the suit had to be filed in the correct court of
pecuniary jurisdiction, but during the course of hearing, it is conceded that
the petitioner/plaintiff does not have to file a fresh suit in the court of correct
pecuniary jurisdiction as per the objections raised by the defendants.
4. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are
discretionary. Once a suit is filed and continued for as many as five years
and defendants have to incur costs of litigation, plaintiff cannot walk away
by simply stating that he wants to withdraw the suit unconditionally. Even if
the plaintiff had not appeared and the suit was dismissed in default, court
would have been entitled to impose costs on the petitioner/plaintiff on
account of costs incurred by the defendants.
5. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not
meant to the exercised in cases such as the present where costs have been
imposed inasmuch as these are issues which are in the discretion of the
court, and once two views are possible, this Court will not interfere with the
one possible and plausible view taken by the court below.
6. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 25, 2014
Ne
