Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 230 of 1968 of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. He executed a promissory note for Rs. 7,500/- in favour of the respondent-decree-holder on 3-2-1965, agreeing to pay interest at 6 per cent. Towards the above transaction 3 payments were made of Rs. 1, 173/-, Rs. 1, 000/- and Rs. 2,100/- respectively. The suit was filed for an amount of Rs. 3, 803 08. It was decreed with a direction to credit an amount of Rs. 300/-, paid pending trial. Besides the principal amount and interest the decree-holder was allowed costs amounting to Rs. 876.42. The decree was on 24th March, 1971. E. P. No. 59 of 1975 was filed for execution of the decree for an amount of Rs. 6,146/-. The revision petitioner claimed relief under Ordinance 1 of 1977 which was subsequently replaced by Ordinance 9 of 1977 and Act 17 of 1977. The Court held that since the debt exceeded Rs. 3.000/-the judgment debtor was not entitled to the benefit of Act 17 of 1977 (for short the Act). It is this order that is challenged here. 2. According to the petitioner, if interest and costs are not taken into account the balance amount due to the respondent would be less than Rs. 3.000/-, and as such, he is entitled to relief under the Act. So far as interest is concerned, it is not disputed that the same is liable to be excluded in view of the definition of 'debtor' in S.2(4) of the Act. Relevant portion of the definition reads: "'debtor' means any person whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees, from whom any debt is due, but does not include (1) any person from whom debt or debts exceeding three thousand rupees (excluding interest) is or ace due: xx" 3. The revision petitioner would contend that costs decreed would fall under the definition of interest and should be excluded. The point for consideration is whether interest as defined in the Act would take in costs decreed in the suit. Interest has been defined in S.2 (6) of the Act. The revision petitioner would contend that costs decreed would fall under the definition of interest and should be excluded. The point for consideration is whether interest as defined in the Act would take in costs decreed in the suit. Interest has been defined in S.2 (6) of the Act. The definition reads: 'interest' means any amount or other thing paid or payable in excess of the principal amount borrowed or pecuniary obligation incurred, or, where anything has been borrowed in kind, in excess of what has been so borrowed, by whatsoever name such amount or thing may be called and whether the same is paid or payable entirely in cash or entirely in kind or partly in cash and partly in kind and whether the same is expressly mentioned or not in the document or contract, if any:" Interest in ordinary parlance means an amount payable in excess of the principal amount either as part of the contract or by way of usage, or under any statutory provision. It is 'money paid for use of money lent or for forbearance of debt' (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The definition of interest in the Act is consistent with the above meaning. Being an amount which is in excess of the money lent, it is not an expenditure actually incurred by the person to whom it is due. Costs in an action represent expenditure incurred by the litigant in the prosecution of the case. By decreeing costs to a litigant the court only compensates him for what was actually incurred by him. Basically costs and interest differ from each other and have nothing in common except that they are usually assessed in terms of money. They are separately provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, when a statute provides that interest should be excluded from debt, it could not have intended that the interest so excluded should take in costs decreed. 4. It follows that the petitioner's contention that costs should not be taken into account in deciding whether the debt exceeds three thousand rupees cannot stand. If the amount decreed as costs is taken into account, the debt exceeds three thousand rupees. Therefore, the petitioner is not a debtor for the purpose of the Act. 5. 4. It follows that the petitioner's contention that costs should not be taken into account in deciding whether the debt exceeds three thousand rupees cannot stand. If the amount decreed as costs is taken into account, the debt exceeds three thousand rupees. Therefore, the petitioner is not a debtor for the purpose of the Act. 5. Even otherwise, since the Act does not contemplate reopening of appropriations already made, the amount mentioned as the balance on the date of the decree represents part of the principal amount left. This amount itself comes to more than three thousand rupees. The revision petition is, therefore, without merits. It is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.