Payment of Court Fees - In Appeal

2010(4) CURRENT TAMILNADU CASES – Page 483 – Payment of Court Fees in Appeal

Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 19 (T.N. Act 14 of 1955) – Suit for maintenance, filed by children, decreed in part – Suit file as in-forma pauperis – Question whether defendant father is liable to pay court-fees on entire amount claimed in suit or to extent to which suit is decreed – Though claim was Rs. 250/- per month each, suit was decreed for Rs. 150/- per month each – Since suit laid as a pauper suit, defendant was directed to pay court-fees – Defendant has to pay court-fee only to extent to which court below granted relief to plaintiffs and not for entire amount as claimed in plaint – Appeal partly allowed. 

Civil Procedure Code - COSTS

2010 (4) CURRENT TAMILNADU CASES – Page 546 – SUPREME COURT

Sections 9, 35, 35-A, 35-B, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 14 Rule 2, Order 17 Rules 2 & 3 – Every person has right to approach civil court seeking remedy if suit is of civil nature – Civil procedure code makes enough safeguards against frivolous or vexatious suits – Such safeguards are found in sections 35, 35-A & 35-B, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 17 Rules 2 & 3 – Section 35 provides for costs an section 35-A provides for levy of compensating costs in respect of false an vexatious claim – Order 7 Rule 11 provides for rejection of Plaint if it fails to disclose cause of action or barred by any law – Issue relate to jurisdiction or any bar create by law can be tried as preliminary issues – Costs could be levied under section 35-B or action under Order 17 Rules 2 & 3 could be taken to punish erring plaintiff – Normal principle is that costs follow event.

Sections 35, 35-A & 35-B – Costs – Principles behind – Imposition of costs should act as deterrent for filing vexatious an speculative suits – Costs are impose to ensure strict adherence of CPC, Evidence Act and to ensure parties to do not adopt delaying tactics – Costs should provide adequate indemnity to successful litigant – Actual costs must be aware as distinguished from nominal, fixed or unrealistic costs – Costs should induce persons to resort to alternative dispute resolution – Cost should not, however, prevent access to justice – Section 35-A has become virtually ineffective an infructuous in view of inflation – Law commission requested to re-visit these provisions – Section 35 does not impose ceiling on costs – Courts can levy costs following results – Non-levy of costs should be supported by reasons – Suggestion regarding appropriate amendments to civil rules of practice given.