What Are Adjournment Costs in Delhi High Court?

What adjournment costs mean, in plain words

An adjournment is simply the court putting a case off to another date. Many adjournments are nobody's fault: the bench rises early, the board is too long, a connected matter needs to be heard first. Adjournment costs arise when the delay is caused by a party. One side asks for more time to file a reply it was told to file four weeks ago, or its counsel is not ready to argue, or a witness is not produced, and the judge allows the request only on the condition that the party pays a sum of money.

The order usually reads something like: 'At the request of learned counsel for the respondent, list on the next date. Subject to costs of Rs 10,000 payable to the petitioner within two weeks.' Sometimes the costs go to the other side, to compensate for the lawyer's fee and the day lost. Sometimes they go to a public fund, such as a legal services committee or a welfare fund, because the court wants to mark its displeasure rather than compensate anyone. Either way, the order is binding and stays on the order sheet that every later judge reads.

These costs are different from the costs awarded at the end of a case, when the losing side may be told to pay the winner's expenses. They are also different from exemplary costs imposed for filing a frivolous or dishonest petition. The money involved is usually smaller, but the consequences of ignoring it can be larger than people expect, because non-payment can block the case itself.

The law that allows the court to impose costs for delay

Why the Delhi High Court puts a price on delay

The Delhi High Court carries a heavy board. A single judge may have well over a hundred matters listed on a busy day, and every adjournment caused by an unprepared party takes a slot that another litigant needed. The Supreme Court has said more than once that no litigant has a right to an adjournment. In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) it asked courts to award realistic costs when adjournments are sought, and in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (2011) it criticised the habit of adjournments being granted for the asking.

So costs are used as a nudge. They tell the defaulting party, and its counsel, that the next request will not be treated kindly. They also compensate, in part, the side that came prepared and travelled to the High Court at Sher Shah Road for nothing. A judge who imposes Rs 5,000 today and Rs 25,000 on the next request is sending a clear message: the third request may simply be refused, and the right to file that reply may be closed.

Not every adjournment attracts costs. A first request for time on a genuine ground, such as counsel's illness, a death in the family, or fresh documents served on the morning of the hearing, is usually granted without any condition. Costs tend to appear when the same party asks for the same thing again, when an earlier order gave a 'last opportunity', or when the court feels the delay is tactical.

Costs at each stage: time and money in general terms

These are typical patterns, not fixed rules. The amount is entirely at the judge's discretion and depends on the case, the conduct and the number of earlier requests.

These costs are never a fixed tariff. Two benches can treat the same request differently, which is why it is safer to avoid the request than to budget for the costs.

Who receives the money: the other side or a fund

When the order says costs are payable 'to the petitioner' or 'to the plaintiff', the money goes to the opposite party, usually through its counsel. This is compensatory. It reimburses part of what that party spent on the wasted day, and it is the form Section 35B CPC contemplates. Payment is normally made by bank transfer to the party or by a cheque or demand draft handed over in court or to the advocate, with an acknowledgement.

When the order says costs are to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, an advocates' welfare fund, a fund for soldiers' families or a similar body, the purpose is different. The court is not compensating anyone. It is marking that its time was wasted. Such orders often come with a direction to file proof of deposit within a fixed period. Read the order closely: some orders specify the bank account, some name the body and leave the mode to you, and a few say that the costs are not to be recovered from the client.

That last point matters. Occasionally the court makes it clear that the costs are personal to counsel or to an officer who caused the delay, rather than to the litigant. In writ petitions against government bodies, benches sometimes direct that the costs be recovered from the official responsible for the default. If your order is silent, the party named pays, and you settle the question of who bears it with your own lawyer separately.

How much are the costs imposed, and what decides the amount?

There is no schedule. The amount of costs imposed for an adjournment depends on what the judge thinks will compensate the other side and discourage a repeat. In everyday practice the figures in Delhi High Court order sheets range from a token sum to tens of thousands of rupees. Heavier figures appear in commercial suits between companies, in matters where a party has defied several orders, and where the court is satisfied that a date was taken only to drag the matter.

Judges look at a handful of things. How many times has this party asked for time? Did an earlier order say 'last opportunity' or 'no further adjournment'? Is the request genuine, such as illness supported by a medical certificate, or vague? Did the other side travel from another city or bring a witness? Is the party a large company, a government department or a pensioner?

Delay costs also tend to grow over the life of a case. A first lapse may be met with a warning, a second with modest costs, a third with heavier costs and a closing of the right. If you see the amount rising in successive orders, take it as a sign that the bench's patience is running out and that the next default may cost far more than money.

Civil suits on the original side: where costs bite hardest

Suits valued above Rs 2 crore at present are filed on the High Court's original side, and a proposal to raise that limit is pending, so check the current figure. Much of the early procedure, such as completion of pleadings, admission and denial of documents and marking of exhibits, happens before Joint Registrars. Their orders are recorded in the same way as a judge's, and missed timelines there are a common source of costs.

The written statement is the classic example. Under the Original Side Rules 2018, a defendant has 30 days to file it, extendable up to 120 days in total, and the Supreme Court has refused to dilute that outer limit, including in Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi (2024). Extensions within the window are generally given on costs. After 120 days the right is closed, and no amount of money buys it back. The same pattern applies to affidavits of admission and denial and to replication: costs first, then closure.

In commercial suits the stakes are higher. Case management hearings fix a calendar for evidence and arguments, and the Commercial Courts Act expects the court to hold parties to it. Costs for failing to follow the calendar are common, and conduct during the suit can also affect the final award of costs. Our guide on how the original side of the Delhi High Court works explains the stages, and the page on commercial suits above Rs 2 crore covers the commercial route.

Bail, quashing and other criminal matters

In criminal matters at the High Court, the defaulting party is often the State. A bail application or a petition to quash an FIR depends on a status report from the investigating officer, filed through the Additional Public Prosecutor. When the report has not come despite a direction, benches sometimes grant time on costs, or direct a senior officer such as the DCP to explain the delay, or both. An accused in custody gains nothing from costs paid to a fund, so his counsel usually presses for a short date instead.

The accused and the complainant can also face costs. An accused who seeks repeated adjournments of a criminal appeal or revision, or a petitioner in a quashing petition who keeps asking for time to bring the settling party to court, may find costs attached to the next date. A complainant who has been served and keeps seeking time to file a reply, while the accused remains under the cloud of an FIR, may be treated the same way.

At trial level, Section 346 BNSS says that when witnesses are present, the court should not adjourn without examining them except for special reasons recorded in writing. The High Court applies the same spirit in appeals. If you are the accused in custody, delay hurts you more than anyone, so the practical aim is to get the other side's response on record quickly. Our guide on how long bail takes in the Delhi High Court explains why status reports decide the pace.

Writs against government departments

Government counsel appear in hundreds of cases a week, and their instructions come from departments that are slow to send records. The result is a familiar sequence in writ courts: notice issued, four weeks for a counter affidavit, no affidavit, another four weeks 'as a last opportunity', and then costs. Benches of the Delhi High Court have imposed costs on ministries, the DDA, the MCD and Delhi government departments for this pattern, and some orders direct that the costs be recovered from the officer responsible.

For a petitioner, costs against the department are welcome but rarely the real goal. A pensioner waiting for arrears or a student waiting for a degree wants an answer, not Rs 10,000. That is why, in a writ, counsel often asks the court to direct that the right to file a counter affidavit will be closed if the next deadline is missed, or that the matter will be heard on the petitioner's pleadings alone. These directions tend to produce affidavits faster than costs do.

If you are the government employee or officer whose delay has been noticed, take an order on costs seriously. An affidavit explaining the delay, filed before the next date with the counter affidavit itself, usually works better than a fresh request for time.

What to do when adjournment costs are imposed on you

Move quickly. The time to pay is usually short, and the safest course is to comply first and argue later, if at all.

1. Get the exact order

   Download the order from the court's website, or ask your advocate for it the same day. Note the amount, the person or fund to be paid, the deadline and whether payment is a condition for anything, such as taking the reply on record.

2. Decide quickly whether to pay or seek relief

   If the amount is affordable and the order is clear, pay it. If you genuinely cannot pay in time, or the costs were imposed on a mistaken basis, an application for extension of time or modification has to be filed before the deadline, not after.

3. Pay in a traceable way

   Use a bank transfer, a demand draft or a cheque against a written acknowledgement. Cash handed over without a receipt causes arguments. If the costs go to a fund, follow the account details given in the order or published by that body.

4. Put proof on record

   File the receipt or acknowledgement with a short covering note, or have your counsel hand it over and state on the next date that costs have been paid. The order sheet should record 'costs stated to have been paid'.

5. Do the thing you asked time for

   Costs only buy a date. The reply, the affidavit or the witness must be ready by then. A second default after paying costs is treated far more harshly than the first.

6. Fix the cause of delay

   If the delay came from missing documents, a slow department or poor communication with your lawyer, solve that now. Ask for a written list of what is pending and who is responsible for each item.

Documents to keep when costs are part of your case

• A copy of every order sheet that mentions costs, in date order.
• The bank transfer record, demand draft copy or receipt for each payment.
• Written acknowledgement from the other side's counsel or the fund for each payment.
• Copies of any application seeking extension of time, waiver or modification of costs, with the order passed on it.
• Medical certificates, travel records or other proof supporting any request for adjournment you made.
• A short note from your advocate explaining why each adjournment was sought.
• For government parties: the internal file noting showing when records were sent to counsel.

Can costs be waived, reduced or challenged?

Yes, but not easily. The simplest route is an application to the same bench, filed before the payment deadline, explaining why the costs should be reduced, waived or the time extended. Good reasons include a genuine medical emergency that was not before the court when the order was passed, a mistake about which side caused the delay, or real financial hardship for an individual. Courts are more willing to extend time than to waive costs altogether. The Supreme Court's reasoning in Manohar Singh supports extension in a fit case, even where Section 35B makes payment a condition.

A review or an appeal against an order of costs alone is rarely worth it. An intra-court appeal or a petition to the Supreme Court over a few thousand rupees costs far more than the sum and takes months. Where costs are heavy, attached with adverse remarks about counsel or a party, or linked to the closing of a right such as filing a written statement, a challenge may be justified. That is a judgment to make with your advocate on the facts.

When Advocate B.K. Singh is asked about challenging an order of costs, his first question is usually what the order does beyond the money. If it closes a right, makes adverse remarks or affects the client's credibility before the same bench, it may be worth addressing. If it is only an amount payable in a fortnight, paying it and winning the case on merits is almost always the better use of time.

Mistakes that turn small costs into big problems

• Ignoring the condition. If the order says the reply will be taken on record 'subject to payment of costs', filing the reply without paying leaves it off the record.
• Paying without proof. Cash or an unrecorded transfer leads to a dispute on the next date, and the burden is on you to show payment.
• Asking for time again on the same ground. A second request for the same reason after costs is the quickest way to have a right closed.
• Applying after the deadline. An application for extension filed after default looks like an afterthought and is often refused.
• Treating a fund deposit casually. Deposits to a legal services committee or a welfare fund also need proof filed in court; the fund will not tell the court for you.
• Fighting the order instead of fixing the delay. Energy spent arguing about Rs 10,000 is better spent finishing the affidavit that caused it.

If the other side keeps delaying: asking for costs

You are entitled to ask. If the opposite party seeks another adjournment, your counsel can point out how many dates have been lost, whether an earlier order gave a last opportunity, what you spend to attend, and whether you have travelled or brought a witness. The request should be specific: costs of a stated amount, payable to you, as a condition of the adjournment, and a direction that the right will be closed if the next deadline is missed.

Do not expect costs to make you whole. Even generous adjournment costs rarely cover a full day's legal fees and travel. Their real use is to change behaviour and build an order sheet showing who caused the delay. That record helps later, when you seek final costs, oppose a restoration application, or ask the court to proceed without the defaulting party's pleadings.

Advocate B.K. Singh's practical tip here is to keep your own dates list: each hearing, who sought time, why, and what was ordered. When a third request comes, counsel can read that list to the court in thirty seconds. Judges respond to a precise record far better than to a general complaint that the other side is delaying.

Which bench imposes costs, and where any challenge goes

Costs are imposed by whichever judicial officer is handling your matter on that date. On the original side that may be a Joint Registrar during completion of pleadings and admission and denial, and a single judge at later stages. In writs, bail, quashing petitions and civil revisions, it is the single judge holding that roster. In Letters Patent appeals, criminal appeals against conviction in serious cases and certain statutory appeals, it is a Division Bench. The roster and the court number appear in the cause list on the Delhi High Court's own website; this site is a private law firm website, not the court's official site.

A Joint Registrar's order can usually be taken before the judge in chambers or the court under the Original Side Rules within the time those rules allow. A single judge's order on costs can be reviewed by the same judge for an error apparent on the record, and some single judge orders on the original side can be taken in appeal to a Division Bench. Orders of a Division Bench can be taken to the Supreme Court only by special leave, which is almost never worth it over adjournment costs alone. Our page on the Delhi High Court and how its benches are organised explains which bench sits where.

NRIs and clients outside Delhi: avoiding costs you never saw coming

Many costly adjournments come from communication gaps, not bad faith. An NRI in Dubai or Toronto receives the opposite side's reply by email, does not reply to counsel's questions for three weeks, and the rejoinder is not ready on the date. A family in Gurugram assumes the lawyer will 'manage' the next hearing without the documents only they hold.

The Delhi High Court allows hybrid hearings, and affidavits can be sworn abroad before an Indian consular officer or a notary with the required authentication. Plan these steps early. If you will be travelling or unavailable around a hearing date, tell your counsel in writing well before, so that any request for time is made at the first opportunity and supported by reasons. An adjournment sought in advance, with a short affidavit or supporting document, is less likely to attract costs than one sought on the morning of the hearing.

If you miss a date entirely, the consequences go beyond costs. Our guides on what happens if you miss a date in the Delhi High Court and on restoring a case dismissed for non-prosecution explain those situations. Restoration is often allowed on terms, and those terms are usually costs.

What to do this week

Open the last two or three orders in your case and look for the words 'costs', 'subject to', 'last opportunity' and 'no further adjournment'. If costs are due, pay them by a traceable method, save the proof and send it to your counsel. If you were given time to file something, ask your lawyer what is still missing and supply it now. If the other side is the one delaying, start a simple dates list so that the next request for time can be answered with facts. For terms you do not recognise, our guide to what Delhi High Court order sheet terms mean will help, and the overview of cases we handle at the Delhi High Court shows where your matter fits.

For advice on your papers or for updates on the law on costs and adjournments, contact Advocate B.K. Singh.