Courts Empowered To Impose Cost But It Shouldn't Be Unbearable, Registry Insisting On Deposit Denies Litigant's Right To Appeal: Gujarat HC

In a plea challenging the imposition of Rs. 25,000 cost by the trial court in rejecting a litigant's review plea, the Gujarat High Court observed the trial court had not concluded that the review plea was "vexatious or false", underscoring that courts have power to impose costs for frivolous litigation but it should be reasonable. 

Taking note of the fact that the district court's registry was insisting on deposit of cost, affecting the petitioner's right to appeal against the trial court order, the high court remarked that the same was "deplorable" as there was no such observation made by the trial court. The high court further underscored that in the absence of such prohibition the registry of the higher court shouldn't insist upon such deposit as it denies the litigant their right to appeal. 

Perusing the trial court order imposing costs, Justice Maulik J Shelat observed “It is required to be noted that the trial court, while imposing a cost of 25,000, has not reached to the conclusion ₹25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, that the review application filed by the petitioner is vexatious or false. It is true 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"

"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,” the court underscored.

After considering the facts and peculiar circumstances–especially that the trial court had recorded "no findings" to say that the review plea was "vexatious", the high court found the cost of ₹25,000 to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority as "exorbitant and not in consonance with the misconduct on his part, if any". 

The Petitioner moved the High Court limiting his prayer to quash and set aside Rs. 25,000 cost imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Anand while rejecting his review plea.

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that 'the cost imposed is exorbitant and not germane to the application'. He further contended that the order does not mention any fraud committed by the petitioner and due to non-payment of the cost, the petitioner is unable to file an appeal as the District Court registry requires prior deposit, thereby “seriously affecting the rights of the petitioner.

The High Court said that "prima facie" it appeared that the trial court has rejected the review application, being not satisfied that there is any error apparent on the face of the record, as shown by the petitioner. The trial court had thereby observed that having consumed the judicial time in such an application, which is bereft of any merit, the application is rejected with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the DLSA. 

At this stage the petitioner's counsel on instructions from his client, said that the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs. 15,000 as cost to the DLSA within one month. The court thereafter said:

"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. In the present case, it is observed that the judgment and decree challenged by the petitioner were passed on 1st October 2021, and now there would be a delay in filing such a first appeal. If the petitioner desires to file an appeal with a delay application, the District Court may examine the said facts and decide on such a delay application in accordance with the law," the court said. 

The high court thereafter modified the trial court order to the extent that the "cost is reduced" to Rs. 15,000, while the rest of the order remains the undisturbed. The high court thereafter "partly allowed" the plea, clarifying that it had not touched on the main issue.

Case Title: Ramsingbhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati vs Dahayabhai Dhanjibhai Prajapati & Ors.

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 30

Case Number: SCA/15942 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order