The court emphasized the principles governing the award of compensatory costs under Section 35-A of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, highlighting that the claim must be false or vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the interests of justice require compensatory costs to be awarded.

1. This Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 622 of 1960 of the Munsiff's Court of Irinjalakuda is directed against the decree in the suit and the order for compensatory costs passed against the plaintiff.

2. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3.30 as jenmikaram and 5 nP as interest thereon. The defendant raised several contentions such as that the suit was premature, that the capacity of the para mentioned in the kanom deed was smaller than the standard para, that the price of paddy claimed was excessive, that the defendant had sent a sum of Rs. 3.46 by money order towards the plaint claim which the plaintiff refused to accept, that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the defendant should get his costs as the plaintiff had refused to accept the amount tendered and as the suit was filed to harass him. It was also stated in the written statement that the capacity of the para was a matter which had to be decided on evidence. The court below held that the "Ettuthappupara" which was the measure mentioned in the kanom deed was 22/23 of the Standard Para in capacity and that paddy was to be valued at Rs. 1.75 per standard para. The contention that the suit was premature was overruled. Instead of the sum of Rs. 3-30 claimed in the plaint, a decree was given for Rs. 2-16. The court awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- as compensatory costs, in addition to costs of the suit. The plaintiff has therefore preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. So far as the decree for Rs. 2.16 is concerned I do not see any reason to interfere. The main point for consideration is whether the order for compensatory costs should have been passed.

4. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the order for compensatory costs is appealable under S.21 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act and that this court should not interfere with the same in revision. There is no absolute bar against entertaining a revision when an order for compensatory costs is made. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Banwari Lal v. Shalimar Paints Co. (AIR. 1926 All. 554) that the right of interference by the High Court in revision under S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does not depend on the question whether an appeal lies or not. This view has been followed in Krishna, Datt v. Bam Saran (AIR. 1933 Oudh. 477). I am inclined to accept this view. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled.

5. The award of compensatory costs is a matter of discretion and the revisional court does not interfere unless the court proceeded on some perverse or wrong considerations or in disregard of the ordinary rules of law relating to the award of costs. The question has to be examined in the light of these principles.

6. I am of opinion that the court ought not to have awarded compensatory costs in this case. It has been held that before awarding costs under S.35-A, the court has to satisfy itself that (1) the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff (2) that interests of justice require it, and (3) the objection was put forward by the defendant at the earliest opportunity. The fact that the defendant had merely claimed costs and not made any claim for compensatory costs in the written statement was overlooked. The defendant had no case that the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It does not appear that a suit could have been avoided as the claim was in respect of an annually recurring sum and there was controversy between the parties regarding the capacity of the para, the rate at which paddy was to be valued, the liability to supply coconut oil and the date on which payment became due. It has also to be observed that before the institution of the suit the defendant sent a money order for Rs. 3.46 to the plaintiff towards satisfaction of the claim. The plaint claim is lower than the amount which the defendant was prepared to pay. The learned Munsiff obs