ABRAHAM Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-decree-holder to the commissioner who was appointed in the case to value the improvements. On the date the decree was passed only the first amount of Rs. 150 had been paid by the decree-holder to the commissioner. On an application by the commissioner for increased remuneration the court appears to have passed an order allowing the latter amount of Rs. 863-4-0 by way of increased remuneration. But according to the rules that amount could not be directed to be paid before sanction in that behalf was obtained from the High Court. THE order allowing the enhanced remuneration was, as already mentioned, before the date of the decree. THE decree, however, refers only to the amount actually spent by the decree-holder by way of cost in the suit. It does not refer to the right of the decree-holder to get the enhanced remuneration allowed to the commissioner should he have to pay it subsequent to the decree. It is stated that the sanction of the High Court was duly obtained and the payment was actually made subsequently. THE petition to amend the decree was with a view to have one half of these two amounts added in the decree by way of costs in favour of the decree holder. THE court below has allowed the petition.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the provisions regarding amendment of decree are inapplicable to a prayer for including an amount which the plaintiff might be entitled but which the plaintiff had not paid before the decree is passed. Exception is taken only to the second amount of Rs. 863-4-0. So far as the first amount of Rs. 150 is concerned it appears that that amount was actually paid before the date of the decree and, therefore, no objection is taken to include in the decree half of that amount.

(3.) THE claim to have this amount included by way of costs to the decree holder is a matter which has first to be considered by the trial court and decided by it. Costs are in the discretion of the Court. Whether the court is going to allow this to the plaintiff or not is a matter dependent entirely upon the discretion. It is not proper for a court of revision to exercise it. THE request to regard the petition as on for review cannot, therefore, be granted.