The pinnacle court docket has dominated that imposition of fees or fines would quit the “frivolous, vexatious and speculative litigation” that unduly burdened the courts.
[This litigation gives an] synthetic upward push to pendency of cases which in flip clogs the justice system and delays the decision of true disputes”, study a six-web page judgment authored by means of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah even as hearing a frivolous case approximately the granting of a succession certificate of an quantity of Rs32,185 left by the deceased father in a financial institution account.
A 3-choose bench of the apex court docket led with the aid of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali mentioned that such litigation become required to be rooted out of the system and one of the alternatives to minimize the practice of instituting frivolous and vexatious instances changed into by way of enforcing of expenses under Order 28 Rule three of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
“The spectre of being made liable to pay real prices should be such as to make every litigant think twice earlier than placing forth a vexatious declare or defence before the court docket,” it delivered.
The judgment noted that these charges in the ideal case will be over and above the nominal ones.
They include the charges of the time spent by way of the a success celebration, transportation and accommodations, if any, or some other incidental cost, besides the amount of the court docket charge, system fee and lawyer’s price paid in terms of the litigation. “[The] imposition of fees in frivilous and vexatious cases meets the requirement of [a] honest trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as it not most effective discourages frivilous claims or defences introduced to the courthouse but additionally [the] absence of such instances permits extra courtroom time for the adjudication of genuine claims,” it delivered.
The SC referred to that it also encouraged the litigants to adopt opportunity dispute decision (ADR) approaches and arrive at a agreement in place of rushing to the courts.
“Costs lay the muse for expeditious justice and promote a clever legal system that complements access to justice with the aid of interesting real claims,” it added.
In a nutshell, the SC cited, charges enouraged opportunity dispute decision; settlements between the events; and reduces useless burden off the courts, in order that they may attend to real claims.
“Costs are a weapon of offence for the plaintiff with a simply claim to present and a defend to the defendant who has been unfairly delivered into court,” the judgment study.
The courtroom mentioned that the strength conferred by way of Section 476, CrPC on a civil, sales or crook court to take cognisance of positive offences dedicated in, or in terms of, any proceedings earlier than it, is discretionary as glaring from the expression, ‘can also take cognisance’, used inside the segment.
“No doubt, like all different discretionary powers, the court involved is to exercise this discretion judiciously, no longer arbitrarily, while taking into account the data and instances of the case, the verdict examine.
“Previously, earlier than its substitution by the Act XXI of 1976, Section 476 had said it expressly that the court docket is to do so underneath Section 476 when it is of opinion that it’s far expedient within the hobbies of justice that an inquiry ought to be made into such an offence. As the discretionary powers need to constantly be exercised inside the pastimes of justice, we are of the considered view that notwithstanding the omission of that expression in the present Section 476, while exercising its discretion beneath this section the court docket worried should provide prime consideration to the query, whether it is expedient in the hobbies of justice to take cognisance of the offence,” the judgment examine.