“Excessive Costs Cannot Be a Barrier to Fair Hearing”: Madras High Court Reduces Rs.25,000 Condition to Rs.5,000 for Setting Aside Ex Parte Order

“An opportunity must be provided to the defendants to defend their case in a manner known to law” – observed the Madras High Court while setting aside a conditional order of the Principal District Court, Ariyalur, which had imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- for allowing cross-examination of a witness after an ex parte order. Justice M. Jothiraman, exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, held on September 8, 2025, that the condition was “excessive, unaffordable, and not inconsonance with law.”

In C.R.P.No.4237 of 2025, the Court reduced the condition to Rs.5,000/-, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness in a civil suit seeking damages of Rs.18,00,000/-, thereby safeguarding the right to fair adjudication and preventing denial of justice due to procedural rigidity.

“Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Can Be Invoked Where Trial Court Discretion is Arbitrary”: High Court Intervenes to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice

The petitioner, Glory, who was the 1st Defendant in a civil suit (O.S.No.58 of 2021), had sought to cross-examine PW1 after an ex parte order was passed due to non-representation on 02.04.2025. Though the trial court later allowed her application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, it imposed a condition to pay Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff, failing which the application would stand dismissed. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount, and the application was dismissed.

Challenging this, she approached the High Court, stating that the amount was excessive and prohibitive, and that she was willing to pay Rs.5,000/- instead.

Justice Jothiraman observed: “Considering the stage of the case and the nature of lis pending between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant an opportunity to the defendants to defend their case in a manner known to law.” [Para 8]

The Court, invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, noted that while conditional costs may be imposed to prevent abuse of process or delay, the quantum must not defeat substantive justice.

“Fixation of costs must not be disproportionate or punitive to the point of denying access to a fair hearing.”

The underlying suit involved a claim for damages of Rs.18,00,000/- filed by a minor, Mathumathi, represented by her mother Mahalakshmi, against school authorities including the petitioner, a Warden, and other school officials, relating to events at Annai Lourdes Girls Higher Secondary School in Ariyalur District.

After the defendants failed to appear for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness (PW1) on 19.03.2025 and 27.03.2025, the trial court passed an ex parte order and posted the case for judgment. The defendants later filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 r/w Section 151 CPC to reopen the matter and cross-examine the witness, which was allowed on a hefty condition of Rs.25,000/-.

“Procedural Rules are Handmaidens of Justice”: Madras High Court Reduces Cost, Restores Right to Cross-Examine

Justice Jothiraman held that courts must strike a balance between discipline in procedure and the right to be heard. Imposing onerous costs for procedural lapses, especially in civil trials, must not result in closing the doors of justice altogether.

“Opportunity must be given to defend the case, and fixation of costs must not result in denial of access to court,” the Court noted while reducing the condition to Rs.5,000/-.

“Accordingly, a direction is issued to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent/plaintiff on or before 12.09.2025.” [Para 9]

The High Court set aside the order dated 04.07.2025, restored the opportunity to cross-examine, and posted the matter for reporting compliance on 15.09.2025.

Date of Decision: 08.09.2025