When There Is No Prohibition In Impugned Order To Pay Cost To File Substantive Appeal, Registry Of Higher Court Shouldn’t Insist Upon Such Deposit: Gujarat HC

The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the cost imposed by the Trial Court in a Civil Miscellaneous Application.

The Single Bench of Justice Maulik J.Shelat explained, “Whenever the court feels that a litigant has consumed the time of the court by filing frivolous litigation, then surely the court has the power to impose a cost. Nonetheless, such a cost should be reasonable and not unbearable to the litigant. All other factors, including the conduct of the parties while pursuing legal remedies, are required to be taken note of by the concerned court before imposing the cost.”

Advocate Nisarg J Desai represented the Petitioner.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that after the dismissal of the suit, as per the legal advice received by the petitioner, a review application was filed before the trial court being the Civil Miscellaneous Application which came to be rejected, The trial court imposed a cost of 25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority.

Contending that the cost imposed is exorbitant and not germane to the application, the Counsel informed the Court that due to the non-payment of cost, even the petitioner is not able to file an appeal before the District Court as the registry of the District Court is insisting on first depositing the cost.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the trial court while imposing a cost of 25,000, had not concluded that the review application filed by the petitioner was vexatious or false. The Bench observed that no case might have been made out for review, and thereby, the time of the civil court must have been consumed to decide such an application, but at the same time, the right available to the party cannot be taken away by the court, as all concerned, including the court, are governed by the law.

“It is deplorable to note that, in the absence of payment of cost, the petitioner is deprived of even filing a regular first appeal before the concerned District Court, despite there being no such observation made in the impugned order to that effect”, the Bench said.

Finding the imposed cost of Rs 25,000 to be exorbitant and not in consonance with the misconduct on his part, the Bench noticed that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 15,000 as cost, which the petitioner will pay to the District Legal Services Authority.

“As such, when there is no prohibition in the impugned order to pay the cost to file any substantive appeal or any other proceedings permissible in law, the registry of the higher court should not insist upon such deposit, thereby denying the right of the litigant to file any such appeal or proceedings. It is always to be decided by the appellate court and other competent courts to examine the aspect of the cost when such appeals or any other proceedings are put forth”, the Bench further held.

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “With the above observations, discussions, and assurance given by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of 15,000 towards cost to the ₹25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority, Anand, the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 stands modified to the extent that the cost is reduced to 15,000.”

Cause Title: Ramsingbhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati v. Dahyabhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:7519)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Nisarg J Desai, Roma I Fidelis

Click here to read/download Order