Costs must be proportionate to the amount of the modified decree in execution proceedings; excessive claims beyond the modified amount are impermissible.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved and displeased with Ext.P6 order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi (Trial Court) in E.P No.25/2018 in O.S. No.190/2010, the judgment debtor before the court below has filed the original petition. The respondent is the decree holder.

2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext.P6 order, in a narrow compass, are: the respondent had filed the suit against the petitioner for a decree of specific performance with an alternative relief for realisation of the advance sale consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit by Ext.P1 judgment granting a decree of specific performance. The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree in RFA No.78/2014 before this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, by permitting the respondent to recover from the petitioner an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- with interest. The parties were directed to bear the respective costs in the appeal. Even though Ext.P3 judgment was further challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP No.12887/2018, the same was dismissed. The respondent then laid the decree to execution by filing E.P. No.25/2018 (Ext.P4). The petitioner objected to the execution petition by filing Ext.P5 objection. The Trial Court, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, permitted the petitioner to realise the cost on the entire plaint claim. Ext.P6 order is improper, illegal and irregular. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Johnson Manayani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.R. Syamkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The question that emerges for consideration is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P6 order.

5. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the Trial Court by Ext.P1 judgment, which reads as follows:-

“In the result, suit is decreed in the following terms:-

a. The defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and put him in possession of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,05,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and five lakhs only) within a period of two months from today.

b. If the defendant fails to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to deposit the balance consideration within a further period of one month before the court and get the sale deed executed through the process of the court at the expense of the defendant.

c. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendant.

6. Challenging Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner filed RFA No.78/2014 before this Court. This Court, partly allowed the appeal by Ext.P3 judgment as follows:-

“31. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The decree for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement passed by the lower court is set aside. The plaintiff is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs only) from the defendant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date 12.12.2006 till the date of the suit and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realisation. The plaint schedule property shall be a charge for the decree debt. The parties shall suffer their respective costs in the appeal.”

7. The respondent laid the decrees passed by the two courts to execution by filing E.P. No.25/2018 before the Trial Court by claiming the following amounts.

“8. Amount dues as per the Decree in RFA 78/2014 :

Amount decreed : 55,00,000/-

Intere