IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 454 of 2009(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2009 IN IA-1184/2008 IN OS.628/2005 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/IST DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------- RANDAMKUNNUCHALIL AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, SALMA MANZIL, ELETTIL AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.T.MOHANKUMAR MR.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ RAROTH ABDUL HAKKEEM, S/O.UTHOOTTY, KOTTOOR AMSOM, PALOLI DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.454 of 2009 - B --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.628 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court II, Kozhikode. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the first respondent was the plaintiff. The second defendant passed away during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff filed a statement that the legal representatives of the second defendant need not be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit. First defendant who had filed a written statement earlier disputing the suit claim filed a statement withdrawing his contentions. The court below decreed the suit with cost of the plaintiff. In awarding cost, the court imposed a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the plaintiff as realisable from the first defendant. Petitioner/first defendant moved an application for reviewing the cost awarded. That application was dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. C.R.P.No.454 of 2009 - B 2 2. Though notice was given respondent/plaintiff has not entered appearance. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Since the first defendant had withdrawn his contentions and the suit was decreed without adjudication imposition of cost, that too a sum of Rs.1,500/- against the petitioner/first defendant was not correct and proper, is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted the suit being one for injunction as per rules under the Civil Rules of Practice, maximum cost that could have been imposed against the defendant was only Rs.150/-. True, the court has got a discretion as expressed by the court below in the impugned order for awarding cost; but, awarding cost must have a close nexus to the suit or proceedings involved and it cannot be left to the fancy of the court. Whatever be the contentions raised by the petitioner/first defendant to resist the suit claim they were not pressed into service, but, withdrawn, before the trial commenced and the suit was decreed without adjudication. In such a case imposition of cost that too a sum of Rs.1,500/- against the petitioner/first defendant was not warranted. Setting C.R.P.No.454 of 2009 - B 3 aside the impugned order, it is ordered the cost imposed against the first defendant in the suit shall also stand set aside. Revision petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-