OMVEER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE HARIDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short, but interesting ques tion of law, is involved for considera tion in this case.

(2.) THE' petitioner herein was a de fendant in a civil suit filed by respond ent no. 3-plaintiff U/s 15 of the Pro vincial Small Cause Courts, 1887, wherein respondent no. 3 had sought eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. Even though ini tially petitioner-defendant had ap peared in the said suit, but since long he chose to remain absent, the suit proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and ultimately ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court on 06-05-1993. On 12-05-1993, the decree sheet was drawn up, which as per established practice, procedure and law, contained statement of costs borne by the par ties. THE operative part of the ex parte judgment dated 06-05-1993, undoubt edly and admittedly did not contain any order or direction with respect to the payment of costs. Even though de cree sheet was drawn up based upon the aforesaid judgment on 12- 05-1993 and even though it also contained tabular statement with respect to the costs incurred by the respective par ties, it did not contain any direction or order about the liability to pay the costs.

(3.) THE decree sheet does indicate in the tabular form, the costs incurred by the parties. Whereas the column of costs against the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff had incurred Rs. 443/- as costs, in the column relating to the de fendant, the costs amount shown is Rs. 55. 50.