Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 301 (GAU)

Mukul Narayan Goswami v. Archana Sarma Goswami

2001-10-10

RANJAN GOGOI

body2001
R. GOGOI, J. — Heard Mr H.L.Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Considering the subject matter of the present revision application and taking into account the fact that the petitioner feels aggrieved by the imposition of costs, this Court considers it appropriate to pass final orders on the present application without issuing notice to the respondent. 3. Title Suit (D) No. 5/2000 was fixed for recording of evidence of the opposite party on 31.7.2001. On the said date, the witnesses proposed to be examined by the opposite party, were not present. Consequently, the case stood adjourned till 23.8.2001 and on the said date, an adjournment application was filed on behalf of the opposite party on the ground that the counsel is out of station in connection with higher judicial service examination. The aforesaid adjournment was allowed subject to payment of adjournment cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the said order and the same having been refused by the order dated 11.9.2001, the instant revision application has been filed. 4. The imposition of costs is ordinarily a power and prerogative of the trial Court and such power is to be exercised on an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. The revisional Court normally would not be inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in this regard unless such discretion has been exercised without due regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the adjournment sought for the petitioner on the date fixed namely, 23.8.2001 appears to have been on substantial grounds. The counsel for the petitioner was to appear in connection with higher judicial service examination and as such was unable to appear before the Court on the date fixed. Necessary documents in support of the said fact were enclosed to the adjournment application filed before the learned trial Court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, adjournment cost of Rs.500/- was imposed and by order dated 11.9.2001, the learned trial Court refused to recall its earlier order. Having regard to the facts as appearing from the records as placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the imposition of costs is not in proper exercise of discretion vested in the learned trial Court. Having regard to the facts as appearing from the records as placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the imposition of costs is not in proper exercise of discretion vested in the learned trial Court. The materials on record are sufficient to show that the counsel had gone to Ranchi to appear in higher judicial service examination and his absence on 23.8.2001 was for reasons beyond control. 5. In that view of the matter, the present revision application stands allowed and the orders dated 23.8.2001 and 11.9.2001 in so far as it relates to the imposition of costs of Rs.500/- are hereby set aside. Revision petition is allowed.