Section 35A of CPC : Section 35A: Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Rajesh files a lawsuit against his neighbor, Suresh, claiming that Suresh has encroached on his property by building a wall. Suresh objects to Rajesh's claim, stating that Rajesh's claim is false and vexatious, and that Rajesh knows it to be untrue. The court investigates the matter and finds that Rajesh's claim is indeed false and was made with the intention of harassing Suresh. The court then orders Rajesh to pay Suresh compensatory costs of Rs. 3,000 for making a false claim.

Example 2:

Meena files a suit against her former business partner, Anil, alleging that Anil owes her Rs. 50,000 from their business dealings. Anil objects, stating that Meena's claim is false and vexatious, and that she is aware that no such debt exists. During the proceedings, Meena realizes that she cannot substantiate her claim and decides to withdraw the suit. The court, after recording its reasons, finds that Meena's claim was indeed false and vexatious. The court orders Meena to pay Anil compensatory costs of Rs. 2,500.

Example 3:

In an execution proceeding, Ramesh claims that his debtor, Sunil, has hidden assets to avoid repayment. Sunil objects, stating that Ramesh's claim is false and vexatious. The court investigates and finds that Ramesh's claim is baseless and was made to harass Sunil. The court orders Ramesh to pay Sunil compensatory costs of Rs. 1,500.

Example 4:

Priya files a suit against her tenant, Ravi, claiming that Ravi has damaged her property and owes her Rs. 10,000 for repairs. Ravi objects, stating that Priya's claim is false and vexatious. The court finds that Priya's claim is indeed false and was made with the intention of evicting Ravi without proper grounds. The court orders Priya to pay Ravi compensatory costs of Rs. 3,000.

Example 5:

During a property dispute, Kiran claims that her brother, Arjun, has forged documents to claim ownership of their ancestral property. Arjun objects, stating that Kiran's claim is false and vexatious. The court finds that Kiran's claim is false and was made to delay the proceedings. The court orders Kiran to pay Arjun compensatory costs of Rs. 2,000.