Om Prakash v. Satish Kumar & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 19 Aug 2025 · 2025:DHC:7110
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 1549/2025
2025:DHC:7110
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's imposition of Rs. 40,000 cost for recalling a witness, holding that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be exercised merely because the cost is considered high.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 1549/2025 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th August, 2025
CM(M) 1549/2025 & CM APPL. 50873-50874/2025
OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, Advocate (Through VC)
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)
CM APPL. 50874/2025 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 1549/2025 & CM APPL. 50873/2025

1. Petitioner is defendant no. 1 before the learned Trial Court.

2. He moved an application moved under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. Such application has been allowed and PW[2] Amit Kumar has been recalled for further cross-examination by him.

3. However, while allowing such application, defendant no. 1 has also been burdened with cost of Rs. 40,000/- and the limited challenge in the present petition is with respect to the aforesaid cost of Rs. 40,000/-.

4. It is contended that cost is excessive and unwarranted.

5. Fact remains that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be invoked merely for the abovesaid reason and the Court would interfere only when cost seems completely unconscionable. CM(M) 1549/2025 2

6. No such situation exists herein.

7. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. Let the cost be cleared by next date given in the suit in question.

JUDGE AUGUST 19, 2025/dr/shs