Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal against the award of costs in a suit. The suit was for recovery of the price of certain tins of coconut oil found to be missing. The plaintiff is a Co-operative Marketing Society and the defendants h re the legal representatives of deceased Kunhiraman who was employed as salesman in the depot of the society. Defendants 7 and 8 are the sureties. During the pendency of the suit, the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 came into force on 15th May 1969. There was a doubt as to whether S.69 of the Act would oust the jurisdiction of the civil court in a suit of the nature from which this appeal has arisen. Ultimately the court found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint was returned to the proper court It' was further stated that the defendants are entitled to their costs. It is the direction for payment of costs that is the subject-matter of this appeal 2. Though normally an appellate court does not interfere with the decree for costs, that is on the premises that award of costs being in the discretion of a court unless it is shown that such discretion has been exercised in a patently erroneous manner no interference would be called for. The very concept of discretion involves an element of subjective approach and therefore an appellate court will be slow to it interfere with the conclusion reached by a court in the exercise of its discretion Even so, the discretion calls for judicial exercise. If the exercise of discretion does not appear to be rational, and cannot be sustained on any logical process of reasoning or if the discretion is seen to have been exercised in an unreasonable or perverse manner, the appellate court is not without power to interfere. Within the limited sphere where the discretion can have its play, the appellate court leaves it to the court which passes the decree to make its own direction in the matter. But where the appellate court finds that the decree for. costs could not have followed the decision on the main case, the court would certainly be justified in interfering. Within the limited sphere where the discretion can have its play, the appellate court leaves it to the court which passes the decree to make its own direction in the matter. But where the appellate court finds that the decree for. costs could not have followed the decision on the main case, the court would certainly be justified in interfering. Where a court finds that the suit is not maintainable in the court for want of jurisdiction not because at the time it was instituted it was so done in a wrong court but because of a law which came into force later it goes without saying that the plaintiff is not at fault in filing the suit in that court. It is the change of the law which necessitated the institution of the suit in a different forum. To award costs against the plaintiff then would be irrational. May be there are circumstances where there is inordinate delay in seeking representation but that is a matter to be pleaded and the court has to be satisfied that in spite of the matter being brought to the notice of the party, be did not take any steps to resort to the proper Court in proper time. That is not said to be the reason for the award of costs. Merely because the suit has been found to be not entertainable in the civil court by reason of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act it does not stand to reason to award costs against the plaintiff when the suit itself is seen to be instituted before the commencement of the Act. Hence we consider the award of costs as perverse and therefore set aside the decree as to costs passed by the court below. In the circumstances, we direct both parties to suffer their costs in this appeal.