This second appeal is filed by the appellant

challenging the portion of judgment dated 02.08.2016

passed in R.A No.14/2014 by the Senior City Civil Judge

and JMFC, Tirthahalli.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and

respondents are the defendants.

- 3 -

3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are

as under:

Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.28/2003 for ejection

against the defendants in respect of a shop premises

which the defendants were occupying as tenants. The suit

came to be decreed and defendants were directed to

handover the vacant possession of the premises within six

months. The trial Court also directed payment of arrears

of rent and future mense profits @ Rs.500/- p.m. till

delivering possession of the premises. Aggrieved by the

judgment and decree passed in O.S No.28/2003 filed an

appeal in R.A No.170/2008 which came to be dismissed

vide judgment dated 18.06.2011 directing the defendants

to deliver the vacant possession of the premises within

nine months from the date of the dismissal of the appeal.

The defendants have vacated and delivered the possession

of

the

suit schedule

property to the plaintiff on

27.09.2011. As there was no determination of mesne

profits in the Original suit and only a sum of Rs.500/- p.m,

was ordered without any enquiry on the mesne profits as

- 4 -

required under Order 21 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and the suit premises would have fetched rent

atleast Rs.3,000/- p.m. The plaintiff filed a suit for

determination of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3,000/-

p.m from 01.02.2003 to 27.09.2011. The trial Court

partly decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled

for recovery of mesne profits only at the rate of Rs.500/-

p.m and not as claimed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. in

the plaint. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and

decree passed in O.S No.214/2011 filed the appeal in R.A

No.14/2014. The First Appellate Court dismissed the

appeal with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff

aggrieved by the imposition of cost, filed this second

appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and

also learned counsel for the defendants.

5.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that

the First Appellate Court had committed an error in

imposing exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/-. He submits that

- 5 -

First Appellate Court has not assigned any reasons for

imposing the cost. Hence, he submits that the plaintiff has

got right to prefer the appeal against the judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff by exercising

his statutory right filed the appeal. Hence, he submits that

First Appellate Court had committed an error by imposing

additional exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, he

prayed to allow the appeal.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants

supports the impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss

the appeal.

7.

This court has admitted the appeal to consider

the following substantial question of law :

'Whether the First Appellate Court was

justified in imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- on the

appellant?'

8.

Perused

the

records

and

considered

the

submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

- 6 -

9. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner

of the suit schedule property and the defendants were in

possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant. The

plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment in O.S No.28/2003.

The said suit came to be decreed and the defendants

aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S

No.28/2003 preferred the appeal in R.A No.170/2008 on

the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Shimoga

which came to be dismissed on 18.06.2011 and granted 9

months time to the defendants to quit and deliver the

vacant possession of the suit schedule property. There

were no specific order passed by the trial Court in O.S

No.28/2003 in regard to the mesne profits. The plaintiff

filed a suit in O.S No.214/2011