Bed Rest During Pregnancy Is Sufficient Cause For Lawyer's Absence: Delhi High Court Waives ₹25K Costs
The Delhi High Court has waived costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on a litigant after his counsel remained unavailable for cross-examination due to pregnancy-related medical circumstances.Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the lawyer's advised bed rest constituted “sufficient cause” for the absence before the trial court. The Court was hearing a plea filed by the litigant challenging the...
The Delhi High Court has waived costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on a litigant after his counsel remained unavailable for cross-examination due to pregnancy-related medical circumstances.
Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the lawyer's advised bed rest constituted “sufficient cause” for the absence before the trial court.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the litigant challenging the cost imposed by the trial court, while granting one last opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness.
The petitioner had filed his written statement along with an application seeking condonation of delay, which was subsequently taken on record. The trial court later framed six issues and listed the matter for plaintiff's evidence.
On July 14, 2025, the matter was adjourned at the petitioner's request. On October 18, 2025, the plaintiff's witness was partially cross-examined and the matter was adjourned for completion of the cross-examination.
When the matter came up on February 21, the petitioner's counsel was unavailable due to the ongoing elections of the Bar Council of Delhi. The matter was subsequently listed for May 16, when the petitioner was again unavailable, following which the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking setting aside of the May 16 order and one final opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
It was explained to the trial court that the absence of the main counsel was unintentional as she was eight months pregnant at the relevant time and had subsequently been advised bed rest. The trial court allowed the application but made the restoration of the opportunity to cross-examine subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 costs.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that while costs could be imposed for avoidable defaults, the amount of Rs. 25,000 was excessive, particularly when the absence was supported by sufficient cause.
It was also argued that the petitioner or counsel could not be subjected to punitive costs on account of the counsel's maternity, which was constitutionally protected.
Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had been advised bed rest, which constituted sufficient cause for the absence.
“While the imposition of costs is intended to serve as a deterrent against avoidable defaults and to reasonably compensate the aggrieved party, the petitioner ought not to be burdened with heavy costs of ₹25,000/-, particularly when sufficient cause for the absence has been duly demonstrated,” the Court said.
Justice Digpaul waived the Rs. 25,000 costs and set aside the portion of the trial court's order which made the opportunity to cross-examine conditional upon payment of the amount to the respondent's counsel.
“The cost imposed in the impugned order is waived,” the Court ordered, allowing the plea.
Title: DILBAGH SINGH v. DEEPAK GANDHI