Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Chapter I: Suits in General · Costs
Section 35A: Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences
In plain words
If a party objects that the other's claim or defence is false or vexatious to that party's knowledge, and it is later disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn, the court can, recording reasons, order compensatory costs to the objector. This applies to suits and execution, but not appeals or revisions.
- The amount cannot exceed three thousand rupees or the court's pecuniary limits, whichever is less.
- It does not exempt the person from criminal liability, and is taken into account in any later damages suit.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) If in any suit or other proceedings [including an execution proceeding but [excluding an appeal or a revision] any party objects to the claim or defence on the ground that the claim or defence or any part of it is, as against the objector, false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put forward, and if thereafter, as against the objector, such claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in whole or in part, the Court, [if it so thinks fit], may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or vexatious, make an order for the payment to the object or by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of cost by way of compensation.
*[(2) No Court shall make any such order for the payment of an amount exceeding [three thousand rupees] or exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less:
Provided that where the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of any Court excercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), [or under a corresponding law in force in [any part of India to which the said Act does not extend]] and not being a Court constituted [under such Act or law], are less than two hundred and fifty rupees, the High Court may empower such Court to award as costs under this section any amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees and not exceeding those limits by more than one hundred rupees :
Provided, further, that the High Court may limit the amount which any Court or class of Courts is empowered to award as costs under this section.]
(3) No person against whom an order has been made under this section shall, by reason thereof, be exempted from any criminal liability in respect of any claim or defence made by him.
(4) The amount of any compensation awarded under this section in respect of a false or vexatious claim or defence shall be taken into account in any subsequent suit for damages or compensation in respect of such claim or defence.]
State amendments to this section
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (UTs).—
In Section 35A, omit sub-section (2).
[Vide the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (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).]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 35A
-
Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. Goran v. Jagan Devi & Ors.
Whether the plaintiff’s suit was time-barred or not. Whether it is Article 65 or Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the present facts in hand.
-
M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Issue arose whether, due to non-compliance with s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a suit should be dismissed u/Ord. VII r.11 CPC, or whether it should be kept in abeyance, directing the parties to first explore…
-
The Correspondence, Rbanms Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court and the trial court rejecting the application filed by the appellant u/Ord.VII r.11(a) and (d) CPC for the rejection of plaint.
-
Duni Chand v. Vikram Singh and Others
Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendants despite the lack of specific pleadings, and no evidence to show consent of interested persons.
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- M/S Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Celem S.A. of Fos 34320 Roujan, France & Anr.
- Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors.
- Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Anr.
- Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta & Anr.
- T. Arivandandam v. T. v. Satyapal & Another