Skip to content


Pandit Kishori Lal Vs. Seth Badri Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916All303; 40Ind.Cas.307
AppellantPandit Kishori Lal
RespondentSeth Badri Das and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 35 - costs--interest--judgment not allowing interest on costs--decree, interest on costs if can be included in--decree, amendment of. - .....on costs in the decree. a bench of this court affirmed the decree of the learned subordinate judge. the applicant makes this application for the amendment of the decree, on the ground that the insertion of interest on costs in the decree without any direction to that effect in the judgment makes the decree differ from the judgment. he, therefore, asks that the decree should be brought in conformity with the judgment by eliminating the direction of interest on costs from the decree. the application, it is to be noted, does not mention the provision or section of the civil procedure code under which it is made. it is contended on behalf of the applicant that if a court wishes to award interest on costs it should say so in its judgment. if the court omits in its judgment to award.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application by a judgment-debtor asking for the amendment of the decree passed against him on the 30th of March 1912 by the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra, which was affirmed by this Court on the 16th of December 1914. The suit in which the decree was passed was brought by Seth Badri Das as a mutwalli for the recovery of possession of a temple and the property appertaining to it. The Court of first instance decreed the claim with costs. No mention was made in the judgment of the first Court as to interest on costs, but in framing the decree interest on costs was inserted. The decree of the first Court was signed by the Vakils of the parties to the suit. The present applicant preferred an appeal to this Court and no objection was taken in the memorandum of appeal to the award of interest on costs in the decree. A Bench of this Court affirmed the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. The applicant makes this application for the amendment of the decree, on the ground that the insertion of interest on costs in the decree without any direction to that effect in the judgment makes the decree differ from the judgment. He, therefore, asks that the decree should be brought in conformity with the judgment by eliminating the direction of interest on costs from the decree. The application, it is to be noted, does not mention the provision or section of the Civil Procedure Code under which it is made. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that if a Court wishes to award interest on costs it should say so in its judgment. If the Court omits in its judgment to award interest on costs, it cannot for the first time award interest on costs in the decree. During the course of argument we have been referred to various sections and rules of the Civil Procedure Code, but none of them supports the contention of the applicant. The learned Subordinate Judge said in his judgment that costs were awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant but made no mention of interest on costs. The actual amount of costs is not to be settled prior to the delivery of judgment but has to be determined subsequent to the judgment for entry in the decree. A Court inserting interest on costs for the first time in the decree is, in our opinion, within its jurisdiction. The power to award interest on costs is discretionary and may be exercised when framing the decree. In the present case it is hardly open to the applicant to object to the decree, as his Pleader signed the decree before it was signed by the Court and no objection was taken in appeal to this Court. We are, therefore, of opinion that considering all the circumstances of the case, the application should not be allowed. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //