Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta
Rule established
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.
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
- 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.
How to use it in an exam
- 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."
Source
Source: (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.
Cited in study notes
CostsMandatory reasons for departing from costs-follow-event