|
The Delhi High Court has underscored the need for courts to adopt a sensitive and humane approach towards women lawyers facing maternity-related difficulties, holding that a litigant cannot be saddled with heavy costs when sufficient cause for the counsels absence has been duly demonstrated.
Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside a cost of Rs 25,000 imposed on petitioner Dilbagh Singh while granting him relief in a dispute arising out of a civil suit pending before a Trial Court at Tis Hazari Courts. The petitioner had sought another opportunity to cross-examine the respondents witness after his opportunity was closed. The counsel representing him, Advocate Aditi Drall, had partially cross-examined the witness earlier, but could not remain present on subsequent dates. As recorded in the order, on one date, the counsel was unavailable during the ongoing elections of the Bar Council of Delhi. On the subsequent date, the petitioners opportunity was closed after the counsel could not attend the proceedings. The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking restoration of the opportunity and one last chance to complete the cross-examination. It was submitted that the absence of the main counsel was unintentional as she was eight months pregnant at the relevant time and had been advised bed rest. The Trial Court allowed the application and restored the opportunity for cross-examination. However, it made the relief conditional upon payment of Rs 25,000 as costs to the respondents counsel. Aggrieved by the imposition of the cost, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that sufficient cause had been demonstrated for the counsels absence and that the amount imposed was excessive. The High Court found that the counsel had been advised bed rest, observing that this constituted sufficient cause for her absence. Justice Digpaul noted that while costs are intended to deter avoidable defaults and reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, they should not become an unduly heavy burden where genuine reasons for absence have been established. The petitioner ought not to be burdened with heavy costs, particularly when sufficient cause for the absence has been duly demonstrated, the Court observed. Accordingly, the High Court waived the entire cost and set aside the condition in the Trial Courts order that required payment of the amount for permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witness. (ANI)
|
