V.S. Joseph and Others vs State of Kerala and Others

M.M. Parred Pillay, C.J.—The Original Petition filed by the, Appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge mulcting the Appellants with costs Rs. 2500 each. The only contention raised by the Appellants is with regard to the imposition of costs in the impugned judgment. Their contention is that maximum Advocate''s fee that can be awarded under the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates is only Rs. 500 for Original Petitions before the High Court and therefore costs awarded cannot exceed the said amount.

The above contention is not tenable as fee prescribed for Advocates under the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates cannot have any nexus to payment of costs to the Respondent when an Original Petition is dismissed by the Court. Rule 157 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 is the one that governs payment of costs. Chapter XI of the High Court Rules deals with proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Rule 157(1) provides that in all proceedings to which these rules apply, and in appeals therefrom, the Court may make such order as to costs and security as it may consider just and necessary. Rule 157 does not impose any limit on the power of the High Court in imposing costs when an Original Petition is dismissed by the court. When there is no such limit, it cannot be contended that the costs ordered while disposing of an Original Petition should not exceed the amount of fees that can be given to the Advocate. u/s 35A of the CPC compensatory costs can be awarded to a party against whom false or vexatious claims or defences were made. Sub-clause (2) provides that no Court shall make any order for the payment of an amount exceeding Rs. 3000 or exceeding the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, whichever amount is less. So far as Rule 157 is concerned, there is no such limit. The High Court can on consideration of the circumstances of the case award reasonable costs under Rule 157.

It was only on consideration of the conduct of the Appellants and the circumstances of the case that the Original Petition was dismissed with costs. The learned Single Judge held that Appellants'' approach cannot be approved at all as proper and that there is every reason to think that they have misused the process of the Court to obtain illegal gain knowing full well that the auction in their favour was cancelled on 30th March 1995 itself. The learned Single Judge further held that without any regard to truth wild allegations were made against the officials of the Panchayat. Taking note of the entire circumstances the learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition mulcting the Appellants with costs of Rs. 2500 each.

We see no reason to interfere. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

*A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series).