This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 2-2-2009, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, insofar as it imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. The petitioner is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of suit property. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement. After framing of issues, the respondent-plaintiff adduced evidence and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the suit was posted for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant. As the petitioner defendant was not appearing continuously, and as there was no representation on his behalf and as he failed to take any steps to get the document impounded, the Court below, closed his evidence and posted the matter for arguments to 15-12-2008. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner defendant filed two applications - the first application praying to re-open the suit for cross-examination of D.W.1, and the second application to recall D.W.1 for cross examination, stating that he had filed a petition before the District Revenue Officer for impounding the document, and that the same having been sent to the Inspector of Stamps and Duty, for collecting the duty and penalty, is pending. That his absence is neither wilful nor wanton and therefore, it is just and necessary to re-open the suit and recall D.W.1 for cross-examination.

3. The respondent-plaintiff contested the applications filing counters inter alia stating that the petitioner-defendant filed affidavit in lieu of chief of his evidence, and at the time of marking the documents, the Court below by order dated 1-8-2008, refused to mark a document as the same required registration, Questioning the said order, the petitioner-defendant carried the matter in revision, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Court below granted about four months to the petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence, but he did not do so. Thereafter, the petitioner-filed transfer petition, but the same was also dismissed. The Court below after granting sufficient time, closed the evidence of the petitioner defendant and posted the suit for arguments. At that point of time, the petitioner filed an application praying to send the document to the District Registrar for impounding and for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said application was allowed on 9-6-2008 with a direction to get the same impounded within a period of one month. Since the petitioner-defendant in spite of granting time, failed to proceed with the matter, by adducing evidence, he prayed that the applications be dismissed.

4. The Court below considering the rival contentions, and in the light of the Court record even though found that the petitioner-defendant was intentionally dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other, but considering the fact that different cases are pending in other Courts, felt it appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to adduce his evidence, and accordingly, permitted the petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence by getting the document impounded by 27-2-2009 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-, and posted the matter for compliance on 27-2-2009. Questioning the part of the order that imposed costs, the petitioner-defendant filed the present CR.P.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner defendant submitted that the Court below has no power to impose costs exceeding Rs. 200/-, and as such, the order of the Court below to the extent it imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- has to be set aside. He submitted that though the Court is empowered to impose costs in exercise of its jurisdiction, but such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in R. Devaiah v. R. Parmedari (1) 1976 (1) APLJ 357. He thus prayed that the order under revision to the extent it imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- be set