Nanakram Idnani vs M. Kamalanabha Rao

P.K. Tripathy, J.—Mr. S.S. Das and associates file Vakalatnama and enters appearance for the opposite party.

Heard. This Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission.

The revision Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC which was registered as M.J.C. No. 3 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada for consideration of setting aside the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No. 28 of 1995. The Court below allowed that application and set aside that ex parte decree subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by February 15th, 2003. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the meantime cost has been paid under protest. Petitioner ventilates his grievance relating to exorbitantness of the cost awarded on the ground that when the suit was retransferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rayagada, Petitioner had no knowledge or intimation about such transfer and therefore he could not participate in the hearing of the suit at Rayagada and as a result of that he was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed.

Looking to the nature of the order and the contention of the Petitioner vis-a-vis the provision in Section 115 CPC this Court does not find it competent for this Court to interfere with the impugned order to modify the quantam of cost. Cost in a case of the present nature should be proportionate to the harassment of the opponent which should be compensated. In addition to that conduct of the parties may be a relevant fact for consideration in such cases. Thus, while not admitting the Civil Revision Petition, it is observed that if the Petitioner shall move an application in the Court below for reduction of the cost that the appropriately considered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rayagada.