Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 622 of 1960 of the Munsiff's Court of Irinjalakuda is directed against the decree in the suit and the order for compensatory costs passed against the plaintiff. 2. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3.30 as jenmikaram and 5 nP as interest thereon. The defendant raised several contentions such as that the suit was premature, that the capacity of the para mentioned in the kanom deed was smaller than the standard para, that the price of paddy claimed was excessive, that the defendant had sent a sum of Rs. 3.46 by money order towards the plaint claim which the plaintiff refused to accept, that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the defendant should get his costs as the plaintiff had refused to accept the amount tendered and as the suit was filed to harass him. It was also stated in the written statement that the capacity of the para was a matter which had to be decided on evidence. The court below held that the "Ettuthappupara" which was the measure mentioned in the kanom deed was 22/23 of the Standard Para in capacity and that paddy was to be valued at Rs. 1.75 per standard para. The contention that the suit was premature was overruled. Instead of the sum of Rs. 3-30 claimed in the plaint, a decree was given for Rs. 2-16. The court awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- as compensatory costs, in addition to costs of the suit. The plaintiff has therefore preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 3. So far as the decree for Rs. 2.16 is concerned I do not see any reason to interfere. The main point for consideration is whether the order for compensatory costs should have been passed. 4. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the order for compensatory costs is appealable under S.21 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act and that this court should not interfere with the same in revision. There is no absolute bar against entertaining a revision when an order for compensatory costs is made. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Banwari Lal v. Shalimar Paints Co. (AIR. 1926 All. There is no absolute bar against entertaining a revision when an order for compensatory costs is made. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Banwari Lal v. Shalimar Paints Co. (AIR. 1926 All. 554) that the right of interference by the High Court in revision under S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does not depend on the question whether an appeal lies or not. This view has been followed in Krishna, Datt v. Bam Saran (AIR. 1933 Oudh. 477). I am inclined to accept this view. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled. 5. The award of compensatory costs is a matter of discretion and the revisional court does not interfere unless the court proceeded on some perverse or wrong considerations or in disregard of the ordinary rules of law relating to the award of costs. The question has to be examined in the light of these principles. 6. I am of opinion that the court ought not to have awarded compensatory costs in this case. It has been held that before awarding costs under S.35-A, the court has to satisfy itself that (1) the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff (2) that interests of justice require it, and (3) the objection was put forward by the defendant at the earliest opportunity. The fact that the defendant had merely claimed costs and not made any claim for compensatory costs in the written statement was overlooked. The defendant had no case that the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It does not appear that a suit could have been avoided as the claim was in respect of an annually recurring sum and there was controversy between the parties regarding the capacity of the para, the rate at which paddy was to be valued, the liability to supply coconut oil and the date on which payment became due. It has also to be observed that before the institution of the suit the defendant sent a money order for Rs. 3.46 to the plaintiff towards satisfaction of the claim. The plaint claim is lower than the amount which the defendant was prepared to pay. The learned Munsiff observed in Para.7 of the judgment: "The defendant has raised the contention in para 13 that the suit is frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff. 3.46 to the plaintiff towards satisfaction of the claim. The plaint claim is lower than the amount which the defendant was prepared to pay. The learned Munsiff observed in Para.7 of the judgment: "The defendant has raised the contention in para 13 that the suit is frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff. I am inclined to accept the case of the defendant on the point as the plaintiff is seen to have refused the money order for a larger amount than he has now sued and that he has refused the money order in order to see if he could get a higher value of paddy than is provided under the Kanom Tenancy Rules. It is bad enough for the landlords to bully their tenants, but it becomes unpardonable when the court is made an instrument for such bullying. I consider this a fit case where compensatory costs has to be allowed." The first sentence is wrong, as I have already stated. According to the plaintiff he refused the money order because jenmikaram had not been settled and that the defendant sent the amount as jenmikaram. In view of the fact that the plaintiff sued for a lesser sum than the defendant was prepared to pay, it is clear that the claim was not false or vexatious to his knowledge. Besides, the claim being an annually recurring one it was necessary to have the matter finally adjudicated. Rajamannar, C. J. pointed out in Peddarangaswami v. The State of Madras (AIR. 1953 Mad. 583) the principles governing award of compensatory costs: "It is intended to deal with exceptional cases in which the exercise of the ordinary discretion under S.35 would not afford a sufficient compensation. So, before awarding compensatory costs the court should satisfy itself that the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the appellant and that the interests of justice require compensatory costs to be awarded." It may also be observed that though the defendant had sent a money order before the institution of the suit he was not prepared to deposit the amount in court. Thus there was no proper tender either, and it was therefore necessary for the court to pass a decree though for a smaller sum. In these circumstances it is impossible to hold that the plaintiff put forward a claim which was false or vexatious to his knowledge. Thus there was no proper tender either, and it was therefore necessary for the court to pass a decree though for a smaller sum. In these circumstances it is impossible to hold that the plaintiff put forward a claim which was false or vexatious to his knowledge. The order awarding compensatory costs must therefore be quashed. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in respect of the award of compensatory costs and is dismissed in other respects. The parties will bear their costs. Partly Allowed.