A court may extend the deadline for costs to avoid dismissal on a procedural technicality.

The Trial Court ordered restoration of Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 2017, qua the respondent, subject to payment of ₹3,000 in costs within 15 days; failing payment, the restoration order would automatically stand set aside.

The petitioners paid the costs on 7 January 2022, after the stipulated period. On the respondent’s application, the Trial Court again dismissed the suit for default, citing the late payment and the petitioners’ filing of an amended plaint without seeking permission to reopen their right to amend.

The Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners’ challenge on 15 April 2023. The petitioners then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking restoration of the suit and relief from the consequences of the delayed payment.

Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit for non-compliance with the costs-payment deadline was sustainable where the petitioners had paid the costs, albeit late.

Whether the Trial Court or Appellate Court ought to have extended the time for payment of costs, rather than allowing the suit to remain dismissed.

The petition was considered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court applied the principle that procedural rules are the handmaid of justice and that civil courts should avoid undue technicality when doing so would impede the advancement of justice.

It also treated extension of the time fixed for payment of costs as a matter of judicial discretion in the circumstances of the case; no statute or precedent was expressly cited.

The Court noted that the costs had in fact been paid, although after the 15-day period, and that the petitioners had not sought an extension before making payment. In the Court’s view, the late payment did not warrant the further dismissal of the suit in the particular circumstances.

When faced with the respondent’s application, the Trial Court—or the Appellate Court—could have exercised its discretion to extend the payment period. Treating the deadline as conclusive would elevate procedure over the merits and seriously prejudice the petitioners’ rights and contentions.

Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 2017 was restored to its original file qua the respondent, and the respondent was permitted to withdraw the costs if not already withdrawn. The petition was partly allowed and the Rule made absolute to that extent.