This is a revision petition against the order of the Sub -Judge Bhadrawah (Shri K.N.Kaul) where he has imposed costs in the shape of penalty to the tune of Rs. 300 on the defendant in a civil suit of the valuation of Rs, 4341 34 then pending before him. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows.

It appears that when the suit was instituted in the court of the Sub-judge, the defendant moved the District Judge Jammu for transfer of the suit from that court. The transfer application was rejected by the District Judge as would appear from the interlocutory order of 24-8-62 in the suit. On 22-9-62, the next hearing of the case, the defendant wanted time for filing his written statement. Three adjournments were granted to the defendant to file his written statement. On 14-11-62 the trial judge was on leave. Three more adjournments were granted to the defendant on payment of nominal costs to file his written statement. Ultimately the defendant filed his written statement on 7-6-63 when the learned Judge issued warrants of attachment for recovery of Rs. 20 costs awarded on the previous hearings. On 7-6-63 the judge further ordered the parties to produce their documents on 18-7-63. On that day the plaintiffs counsel was not prepared to admit or deny the documents produced by the plaintiff because the original ledger was not available. The defendant had also produced certain documents for which the ledger was required and the defendant was directed to produce the ledger on 30 7-63. On -30-7-63 the trial court recorded in its order that the defendant was not present and therefore the counsel for the defendant expressed his inability to record his admission or denial on the documents produced by the plaintiff. The court burdened the defendant with Rs 300 costs by way of penalty, because the defendant, according to the trial court, was a big business concern, and the plaintiff was a poor man. It was further ordered that if the costs were not paid on the next hearing, exparte proceedings would be taken against the defendant On the next hearing of the case, i. e.- 21-9-63 the court actually proceeded exparte against the defendant, but after that date the case was transferred from the court of the Sub-judge Bhadrawah to the court of the Sub-judge Jammu where it is pending now.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and reproduced in detail the various inter locutory orders of the trial court The contention of Mr. Suraj Prakash appearing for the applicant is that the court has acted rather vindictively, it had no right or power to inflict any penalty. Even if the costs of Rs. 300 are deemed not to be penalty but as costs the costs so imposed are out of proportion to the default committed or the nature, volume and valuation of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent tried to support the order of the trial court, though he conceded that the amount of Rs 300 as costs was exorbitant, the defendant was deliberately avoiding disposal of the suit and had taken recourse to dilatory tactics even before the order of 30-7-63 was passed.

Mr Suraj Prakash referred to O. 17. r. 1 of the Civil P. C. which deals with adjournments and referred to certain authorities namely, A. I.. R. 1930 Oudh 171, A I. R. 1946 Bom. 115, A. I. R. 1942 Lahore 162 and A. I. R. 1963 Bhopal 6 The crux of these authorities is (1) that costs should be awarded against a party who is in default but those costs should not be in the nature of a penalty or punishment. (2) the costs must be determined as occasioned by the adjournments, and (3) the costs should not only be those costs which are taxable for that days adjournment, but should be such as can reasonably be held to be occasioned by the adjournment and might reasonably compensate the party against which adjournment is sought.

In this case, it is true that the defendant sought certain adjournments for filing the written statement. The written statement was not filed as directed by the court. The court h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document