IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No. 873 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2008 IN IA 2221/ 2006 IN OS.25/2004 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------ PADINJARAKATHU NAZIMA, D/O.HAMSA, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, VELLERI DEOSM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------ M.V.JAYARAJAN, S/O KUNHIKKARI, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM, PUNNATHIRUTHY DESOM, P.O.PONNANI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P No. 873 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th December, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.25/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. The prayer in this revision petition is to set aside the order passed by the court below on I.A.2221/2006 in O.S.25/2004 filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for correction of the judgment and decree in the suit and to reduce the cost ordered by the court below to one of proportionate cost. 2. Respondent has entered appearance. Heard counsel on both sides. 3. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that the suit O.S.25/2004 was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property for an argued consideration of Rs.5,20,000/-, but the court below decreed the suit only in part ordering return of advance consideration of Rs.70,000/- received under the agreement vide judgment dated 13.9.2006, though at the same time the court awarded full cost in the suit to the respondent/plaintiff to be realised from the petitioner and that C.R.P. 873/2008 2 the same is a mistake or an error in the judgment and that, therefore, it should have been allowed to be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC or invoking the powers of the court under Section 151 of the CPC. The contention canvassed cannot be upheld in view of the various binding authorities and precedents. When the court has awarded full cost in the suit, the aggrieved party cannot move for correction of judgment and decree saying that it is a mistake which requires to be corrected invoking Section 152 or Section 151 of the CPC. Awarding cost is in the discretion of the court which decreed the suit. The court must have thought it fit under the circumstances available in the instant case and considering all aspects of the matter that it would not be proper to allow specific performance and consequently exercising the discretion that is vested in the court under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act the court has granted a decree only for recovery of the amount paid as advance under the agreement; but thought it fit to order the entire cost in the suit to be realised from the defendant who stands benefitted by the exercise of discretion in his favour. The refusal by the court below to allow correction as sought for does not deserve to be interfered with in this revision. This revision in the C.R.P. 873/2008 3 circumstances is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. In the result I dismiss this C.R.P. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj