1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2008 (RAJARAM VITTHAL JOSHI Vs NARAYAN GOVIND MURUGKAR) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 29, 2008. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes refusing the petitioner's claim for costs of Rs.6,263/-. The petitioner/ decree holder had filed an application for determination of mesne profit. This Misc. Civil Application No.83 of 1998 was allowed by the trial Court granting mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/- per month amounting to Rs.73,666/-. This order was challenged in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal from the District Judge, who held that the petitioner-decree holder was entitled to mesne profit @ Rs.750/- per month. He, therefore, modified the decree of the trial Court enabling the petitioner to recovery of a sum of Rs.55,050/- only in place of Rs.73,666/- which had been earlier granted by the trial Court. The appellate Judge began the operative part of the order with following sentence “The appeal is allowed partly with proportionate costs.” The costs of Rs.6,263/- had been calculated on the claim of Rs.73,666/- which has been decreed 2 as can be seen from the bill of costs at page 20 of the paper book. Obviously these costs would have to be reduced proportionately since the claim allowed by the appellate Court was Rs.55,050/- only. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the Bill of Costs of Rs.6,263/- has not been modified by the trial Court, he is entitled to recover the costs mentioned in the Bill of Costs. This contention is not correct upon modification of the decree and reduction of the decreetal sum with specific direction that the decree holder shall be entitled to proportionate costs, the costs should have been proportionately reduced. 2. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court, so far as it relates to recovery of costs of Rs.6,263/-, is concerned. No interference is called for in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.