MANUNKUTTY Vs. VENKITESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Costs are in the discretion of the Court. So, in disposing of a case the Court has to take a decision on the question of costs also. As costs of and incident to all suits shall be in the discretion of the Court it has the power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid. The question that arises for consideration is whether there is any justification in awarding costs to the State in allowing a petition to set aside ex parte filed under O.9, R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) The Additional Munsiff, Palghat allowed certain applications under O.9, R.9 and O.9, R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on payment of costs not only to the opposite party but to the State also which was not a party to the proceedings. Such orders were passed in as many as 32 cases. This was brought to the notice of the High Court and a decision was taken on the administrative side to take up the matter in suo motu revision in one case. The order on I. A. No. 3685 of 1975 in O.S. No 284 of 1975 from which the suo motu revision was taken, reads:

(3.) S.35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads: