High CourtsDivision Bench(1949) 08 MAD CK 0011

Pati Banda Bharadrajulu vs Pisipati Lakshminarayana

Madras High Court · Decided on 12 August 1949 · Citation: (1949) 2 MLJ 744

HON’BLE JUDGES
Horwill, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 363 words

Horwill, J.—This is a civil revision petition against the decree of the Principal District Munsiff of Guntur dismissing the plaintiff''s suit for

arrears of rent and awarding to the defendant compensatory costs.

2.

On the merits there is little that can be said. It is alleged that a reading of the judgment indicates that the'' learned District Munsiff approached the

matter that had to be decided with some prejudice against the plaintiff. It is, of course, clear that the District Munsiff held a very strong opinion that

the conduct of the plaintiff had been reprehensible; but that was an opinion that he was entitled to form after seeing the plaintiff and the defendant in

the box, examining the evidence, and hearing the arguments.

3.

Compensatory costs should be awarded with some caution; but a revisional Court is reluctant to interfere with the exercise of any discretion by

the lower Court regarding costs, unless it has proceeded on some perverse, or at any rate, some wrong considerations, or has disregarded the

ordinary rules of law relating to the awarding of costs. Before awarding compensatory costs u/s 35-A, Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to

satisfy itself that the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff, that the interests of justice require compensatory costs to be

awarded, and that the defendant had put forward his. objection that the suit was false or vexatious at the earliest opportunity. The defendant filed

an application for compensatory costs only on the day before the order was delivered; and so it can be said that he put forward his objection at the

earliest opportunity only if it can be read into his written statement. It is not there in express terms; but reading the written statement as a whole,

there can be no doubt that the defendant did mean to say that the claim of the plaintiff was false and that he knew it to be false. That the claim was

false to the knowledge of the plaintiff the lower Court clearly found. I am therefore unable to find any cause for interfering with the lower Court''s

order.

4.

The petition is dismissed with costs.