The question involved in this Revision is whether an order for costs passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition can be executed by filing an Execution Petition in the civil court.

2. The revision petitioner, a cable T.V.Operator, was the respondent in a petition filed by the respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum passed an order directing the revision petitioner to deposit Rs.1,400/- and certain other amounts. The revision petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Forum in appeal before the Consumer Disputes State Commission. As the petitioner did not get an interim order of stay, he moved the High Court in W.P.(C) No.24112 of 2003. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs by the judgment dated 6.2004. The office of the High Court certified the costs.

3. The respondent herein filed an Execution Petition before the Court of the Munsiff of Parappanangadi for execution of the aforesaid order to pay costs, passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition. The prayer in the Execution Petition was to realise the amount by arrest and detention of the revision petitioner in civil prison. The revision petitioner resisted the Execution Petition and contended that the petition is not maintainable in law and that he has no means to pay the amount sought o be realised. Though it was contended that the Execution Petition was not maintainable, the revision petitioner had not stated on what ground it was not maintainable and apparently no arguments were advanced before the executing court in that regard.

4. The learned Munsiff held that the revision petitioner has means to pay the amount of costs and that he has refused and neglected to pay the amount to the respondent herein. Accordingly, the Execution Petition was allowed finding that the revision petitioner is liable to be detained in civil prison. The executing court granted fifteen days time to the petitioner to pay the amount. The order passed by the Munsiffs Court in the Execution Petition is under challenge in this Revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order directing payment of costs in the Writ Petition does not amount to a `decree or `order capable of being executed before the civil court. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the executing court and contended that all Subordinate Courts are bound to honour the order passed by the High Court. He submitted that the revision petitioner is bound to honour the order to pay costs and, therefore, he cannot be heard to contend that the civil court has no jurisdiction to execute the order to pay costs.

6. Chapter XI of the "Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `High Court Rules), captioned as "Proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution" consists of Rules 145 to 163. Rule 157 of the Kerala High Court Rules provides for cost and security. The rule reads as follows:

"157. Cost and security:- (1) In all proceedings to which these rules apply, and in appeals there from, the Court may make such order as to costs and security as it may consider just and necessary.

(2) Where costs are awarded to a party, such costs may include the court-fees paid on the petition and other documents under these rules, the cost of making copies of the petition, affidavit etc. which are furnished to the Court and which by these rules are required to be served on the opposite party or parties, the cost of the paper book and the advocates fees allowed by the Court."

Chapter XI of the High Court Rules does not provide for any mode in which the order for payment of costs shall be executed.

7. Rule 19(iii) of the "Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" provides that the costs awarded in the proceedings to which the Rules relate shall be recovered as if it were a fine imposed under the "Code". As per t