Delhi HC Waives ₹25,000 Costs Over Counsel's Bed Rest

Counsel's Advised Bed Rest Was Sufficient Cause: Delhi High Court Waives ₹25,000 Costs

Published: 13 September 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Delhi High Court waived costs of ₹25,000 that a Tis Hazari trial court had imposed as a condition for restoring a defendant's opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. Justice Ajay Digpaul held that the advised bed rest of the defendant's counsel constituted sufficient cause for the absence, and that the litigant ought not to bear heavy costs, particularly when that cause had been duly demonstrated (paras 7-8).

Key holdings

Counsel's advised bed rest constituted sufficient cause for the absence (para 7).

Costs are meant to deter avoidable defaults and reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, but the petitioner ought not to bear heavy costs of ₹25,000, particularly when sufficient cause had been duly demonstrated (para 7).

The ₹25,000 cost was waived and the condition attached to the cross-examination was set aside (para 8).

The Court ruled without entering into the merits of the present case (para 7).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In a civil suit before the District Judge-07, West District, Tis Hazari Court (CivDJ/247/2024), the plaintiff's witness PW-1 was partly cross-examined on 18 October 2025 (paras 1, 3). On 21 February 2026 the defendant was unavailable because of the Bar Council of Delhi elections, and on 16 May 2026 he was again unavailable, so the plaintiff's evidence was closed (para 3). His application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC said the main counsel's absence was unintentional, as she was eight months pregnant and on 21 February had gone to vote in the Bar Council election (para 4). On 18 July 2026 the trial court allowed it, subject to costs of ₹25,000 payable to the respondent's counsel (para 5).

Court's Findings

Justice Ajay Digpaul decided the petition without entering into the merits of the present case (para 7). The Court held that the petitioner's lawyer "had been advised bed rest, which constitutes sufficient cause for the absence" (para 7). It observed that costs are meant to deter avoidable defaults and to compensate the aggrieved party reasonably, but held that the petitioner ought not to be burdened with heavy costs of ₹25,000, particularly when sufficient cause had been duly demonstrated (para 7). The cost was therefore waived, and the trial court's order was set aside to the extent that it made the cross-examination conditional on paying ₹25,000 to the respondent's lawyer (para 8). The petition was allowed and, with any pending applications, disposed of (para 9). The petitioner had also called the costs extravagant and relied on the constitutional protection of maternity (para 6); the order rests on sufficient cause and does not address the constitutional maternity argument (paras 6-8).

Legal Principle

On the facts, the Court treated counsel's advised bed rest as sufficient cause for the absence. While costs are intended to deter avoidable defaults and reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, the litigant ought not to be burdened with heavy costs, particularly when sufficient cause has been duly demonstrated (paras 7-8).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The order is short and fact-bound, but useful in trial practice. Where a party misses a hearing because counsel was advised bed rest, that can be sufficient cause, and heavy costs should not follow once the cause is shown (para 7). The Court accepted that costs deter avoidable defaults and compensate the other side, yet waived the ₹25,000 and freed the cross-examination from the payment condition (paras 7-8). It did not rule on the petitioner's constitutional argument about maternity (paras 6-8). An applicant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC should put the reason for absence, such as medical advice, on record: the Court relied on sufficient cause having been duly demonstrated (para 7).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.