Case Law Details
Manohar Singh Vs. D.S. Sharma & Ors.
AIR 2010 SC 508
Where the plaintiff has been directed to pay costs to the defendant, for seeking adjournment and causing delay, does the non-payment of costs by the plaintiff, entails the dismissal of the suit?
This question came up for discussion in the above mentioned case before their Lordships, and it was held that non-payment of costs, does not entail the dismissal of the suit. Order XVII rule (1) of the CPC provides that the court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule (2) of this order provides that in every such case the court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit and shall make such order as to cost occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deem fit.
Section 35B, of CPC provides that if costs are levied on the plaintiff for causing delay, payment of such costs shall be a condition precedent on the next date of hearing, to the further prosecution of the suit by the plaintiff. On the other hand if defendant has been directed to pay for causing delay, payment of costs shall be a condition precedent on the next date of hearing to the further hearing to the further defence of the suit by the defendant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
