Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 126
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha
VITHAL DIWAKAR – Appellant
Versus
N PARSHURAM IYER – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 841 of 1951
Decided on : 11-11-1952
G C Banerjee, Advocates
The discretion of the Court in awarding compensatory costs and the absence of a right of appeal against an order refusing to grant compensatory costs.
Headnote:
Compensatory Costs - Civil Procedure - The court refused to grant compensatory costs to the receiver appointed in the action. The matter of costs, including compensatory costs, is in the discretion of the court, and there is no right of appeal against an order refusing to grant compensatory costs.
Fact of the Case:
The Civil Judge Class II of Nagpur refused to grant compensatory costs under Section 35A, Code of Civil Procedure to the Petitioner, who is a receiver appointed in the action.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the matter of costs, including compensatory costs, is within the discretion of the Court, and there is no right of appeal against an order refusing to grant compensatory costs. The Court concluded that the refusal to grant compensatory costs did not attract the revisional jurisdiction of the Court.
Issues: The issue was whether the Court erred in law or on facts in refusing to grant compensatory costs to the receiver appointed in the action.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the matter of costs, including compensatory costs, is within the discretion of the Court, and there is no right of appeal against an order refusing to grant compensatory costs. The Court also emphasized that the refusal to grant compensatory costs did not attract the revisional jurisdiction of the Court.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed without costs.
Sinha, C J—This application in revision is directed against the order dated 26-9-1951 passed by the Civil Judge Class II of Nagpur refusing to grant compensatory costs under Section 35A, Code of Civil Procedure to the Petitioner, who is a receiver appointed in the action. The Court below has said in its order that after hearing the evidence of the Petitioner it did not find sufficient reasons for awarding compensatory costs.
2. It is well established that the matter of costs, even compensatory costs, is in the discretion of the Court, and the legislature has not provided for any right of appeal against an order refusing to grant compensatory costs. Hence the matter comes before this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
3. The utmost that has been said in this case is that the Court below has erred in law or on facts in refusing to grant compensatory costs. But that does not attract the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The only case cited before me where the High Court or a Court equivalent to the High Court has interfered in revision is the one decided by the Additional Judicial Commissioner of the then Judicial Commissioners Court reported in - Dhanooji v. Adkooji 18 Nag LJ 309 (A). That was a case where the Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to give an opportunity to the party to show that he was entitled to compensatory costs. Hence this Court directed the Court below to enquire into the matter and decide judicially. In this case the position is entirely different. The Court has not refused to go into the matter. It has recorded such evidence as was forthcoming and has come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that it was not a fit case in which compensatory costs should be awarded. Such a decision, in my opinion, does not attract the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The application is therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Final Result : Dismissed
