Belated court-fee and jurisdiction objections cannot be isolated as preliminary issues once evidence is complete; realistic costs upheld.

The SC held that a belated objection on court fee and jurisdiction could not be treated as a preliminary issue after pleadings, evidence and final arguments had already concluded, because it was not a pure jurisdictional or statutory bar. The trial court and High Court were therefore justified in refusing to isolate that issue and in proceeding to judgment on all matters. The Court also upheld intervention-resistant orders and sustained realistic costs, stressing that repeated applications, delay tactics and obstructive litigation warrant deterrent costs to prevent abuse of process and ensure that frivolous conduct yields no advantage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in refusing to treat the issue relating to court fee and jurisdiction as a preliminary issue after the parties had led evidence and the matter had reached the stage of final arguments. (ii) Whether the appellate court should interfere with the impugned order and whether realistic costs were warranted in view of the obstructive and frivolous conduct of the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the trial court and the High Court were justified in refusing to treat the issue relating to court fee and jurisdiction as a preliminary issue after the parties had led evidence and the matter had reached the stage of final arguments.

Analysis: The issue raised did not involve a pure jurisdictional bar or a statutory bar to the suit in the sense contemplated by the procedural rule governing preliminary issues. The suit had proceeded through pleadings, admission and denial, evidence, and final arguments. In that setting, the court was required to pronounce judgment on all issues, and the belated attempt to isolate the court-fee question as a preliminary issue was inconsistent with the scheme of the procedural code and the manner in which the trial had already progressed.

Conclusion: The refusal to treat the matter as a preliminary issue was justified and the appellants had no merit on this point.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court should interfere with the impugned order and whether realistic costs were warranted in view of the obstructive and frivolous conduct of the appellants.

Analysis: The record showed repeated applications, delay tactics, and attempts to obstruct the progress of a long-pending civil suit. The Court emphasised that frivolous litigation burdens the justice system and that courts must deny wrongdoers any profit from such conduct. It reiterated the need for realistic costs, pragmatic restitution, careful scrutiny of pleadings and documents, timely disposal of injunction applications, and effective deterrence against abuse of process. On the facts, the impugned order called for no interference and the conduct of the appellants justified a substantial costs order.

Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the costs imposed were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the challenged orders were affirmed, and the litigation was brought to an end with enhanced costs and directions for expeditious disposal of the underlying suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must refuse to convert belated, non-jurisdictional objections into preliminary issues once evidence is complete, and must impose realistic costs to prevent abuse of process and to ensure that frivolous or obstructive litigation does not yield any advantage.

---