Costs
Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with costs. Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of an incident to all suits shall be in the discretion of the Court, and the Court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what e The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of an incident to all suits shall be in the discretion of the Court, and the Court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid. The fact that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of such powers.
(2) Where the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing.
1* * * * *
*[35. Costs.(1) In relation to any commercial dispute, the Court, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Rule, has the discretion to determine:
(a) whether costs are payable by one party to another;
(b) the quantum of those costs; and
(c) when they are to be paid.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of clause (a), the expression costs shall mean reasonable costs relating to--
(i) the fees and expenses of the witnesses incurred;
(ii) legal fees and expenses incurred;
(iii) any other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings.
(2) If the Court decides to make an order for payment of costs, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party:
Provided that the Court may make an order deviating from the general rule for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Illustration
The Plaintiff, in his suit, seeks a money decree for breach of contract, and damages. The Court holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to the money decree. However, it returns a finding that the claim for damages is frivolous and vexatious.
In such circumstances the Court may impose costs on the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff being the successful party, for having raised frivolous claims for damages.
(3) In making an order for the payment of costs, the Court shall have regard to the following circumstances, including--
(a) the conduct of the parties;
(b) whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful;
(c) whether the party had made a frivolous counterclaim leading to delay in the disposal of the case;
(d) whether any reasonable offer to settle is made by a party and unreasonably refused by the other party; and
(e) whether the party had made a frivolous claim and instituted a vexatious proceeding wasting the time of the Court.
(4) The orders which the Court may make under this provision include an order that a party must pay--
(a) a proportion of another partys costs;
(b) a stated amount in respect of another partys costs;
(c) costs from or until a certain date;
(d) costs incurred before proceedings have begun;
(e) costs relating to particular steps taken in the proceedings;
(f) costs relating to a distinct part of the proceedings; and
(g) interest on costs from or until a certain date.]
STATE AMENDMENTS
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (UTs).--
In Section 35, in sub-section (1) omit "Commercial".
[Vide the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020, notification No. S.O. 1123(E) dated (18-3-2020) and vide Union Territory of Ladakh Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 3774(E), dated (23-10-2020).]
Section 35, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Civil courts must impose realistic costs (CPC ss.35, 35A) and use inherent powers (s.151) to deter false and vexatious litigation; uncontested adjournments and token costs encourage abuse. Maria Margarida (same era) has only a 2010 ROP on its CNR and is not used. Use Judgment order-4.pdf (2011-07-04).
On this section: Ordinary costs under s.35 must be realistic, not token, so that false civil claims are unprofitable.
-
J. P. Builders vs A. Ramadas Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement, the plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations from the date of contract to the date of decree through conduct, part-payment, and financial capacity. Readiness refers to financial capacity while willingness refers to conduct of the plaintiff. When a contract involves obtaining clearance from a third party (such as a bank) for release of mortgaged property, such obtaining of clearance is an incidental and implied covenant on the vendor's part and does not make the contract contingent or impossible to perform. The equitable doctrine of marshalling under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is available to a decree holder in a suit for specific performance to ensure that the mortgagee exhausts its remedy from other properties of the mortgagor before proceeding against the property sold to the subsequent purchaser, provided such application does not prejudice the mortgagee's rights. A pure question of law can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage even if not specifically pleaded at trial, particularly when larger relief was prayed in the plaint.
On this section: Deals with award of costs; Court held that substantial court fee paid by plaintiff entitles him to costs when major relief granted
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 35
What have the courts held on Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (04 Jul 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Ordinary costs under s.35 must be realistic, not token, so that false civil claims are unprofitable. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2011.
How do I find court cases under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 35, section 35 CPC, section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 35a and cpc 35 hours. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (04 Jul 2011).
When did Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 35, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.