CPCCostsSupreme Court of India

Ashok Kumar Mittal v Ram Kumar Gupta

(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65620091 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A civil suit concluded with judgment in favour of one party. The trial court passed an order without costs but gave no reasons for departing from the default rule.
Issue
Whether a court must give reasons when departing from the default rule that costs follow the event.
Held
Section 35(2) establishes the default: costs follow the event.
Principle
Section 35(2) CPC makes it mandatory for the court to give reasons if costs are not awarded following the event. A no-costs order without reasons is liable to be set aside.
Cite this

Facts

  • A civil suit concluded with judgment in favour of one party
  • The trial court passed an order without costs but gave no reasons for departing from the default rule
  • The successful party challenged the no-costs order

Issue

  1. Whether a court must give reasons when departing from the default rule that costs follow the event.

Held

  • Section 35(2) establishes the default: costs follow the event
  • If the court departs from this default, reasons must be recorded
  • A bare "no costs" order without reasons is improper
  • Such an order is liable to be set aside on appeal
  • The obligation to give reasons ensures judicial accountability in cost decisions

Ratio decidendi

Costs follow the event by default under S.35(2). Departure requires recorded reasons. A no-costs order without reasons is liable to be set aside.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

- Key line: "In Ashok Kumar Mittal (2009), the Supreme Court held that S.35(2) makes costs follow the event. A no-costs order without reasons is liable to be set aside."

Cite this

Citation

Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 656

Reported: (2009) 2 SCC 656; verified via standard CPC references. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.