It would be seen that Section 35
essentially deals with the actual costs of the
‘suit’ while under section 35-A they are
‘compensatory’. Their nature is well
summarized by Mr. Amer Raza A. Khan in
his well known commentary on CPC that:
costs awardable by a court can either be
compensatory costs (S. 35-A) or actual costs
(S. 35). Actual costs are awarded by a Court
in order to secure the expenses undergone
by a successful litigant in the assertion of his
rights before a Court. They are not awarded
by way of penalty or punishment against the
unsuccessful party nor are they to be made a
source of profit for the successful party. They
are also not awarded by way of
compensation, but by its very nature, actual
costs are awarded to reimburse a successful
party for the expenses incurred by him. And
further that even under section 35-A “Costs
are compensatory and are not awarded as
penalty against an unsuccessful party”. All
this shows that though the costs awarded
under section 35-A CPC can be taken into
account when awarding “damages”, they are
not even by statutory dispensation, the same
as the “damages”. The conditions for
application of section 35-A are different and
much less than the elements set out earlier
for an action for malicious prosecution. The
actual costs of the suit under section 35,
C.P.C. are at a much lower level when
considered in this behalf. Besides this, a
combined reading of sub section (4) of
section 35-A and sub section (2) of section 95 which deal with the effect of the orders
under these provisions on actions for
“damages”, are clearly indicative of the
legislative intent; that unless a case is fully
covered by section 95(2), the award of costs,
under section 35 and 35-A instead of barring
a suit for damages supports the right for
such an action…”
Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Original Suit (C.O.S)
1343554.643-12
2019 LHC 1410
0 comments:
Post a Comment