Judgment :- The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruchengode. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.795 of 2003, praying to appoint a Commissioner to find out the age of coconut trees which allegedly planted by the petitioner in the poromboke land adjoining to his land. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of the property in Survey No.134/1 in the suit village and the adjoining area is in survey No.137/3. Admittedly it is a poromboke land. The case of the plaintiff is that he had planted 20 coconut trees and has applied for 2C Patta. Since no order was passed and since the plaintiff apprehended that 2(C) patta would be given to somebody else; in order to establish that it is he who planted the coconut trees, he has filed the above interlocutory application for appointment of a Commissioner and the said application was dismissed on the ground that while planting the trees in the canal poromboke, that area is filled up and it affects the free flow of water and the nearby area is flooded during rainy season; and while dismissing the said interlocutory application, the trial Court imposed a costs of Rs.2000/- payable to Sri Mariamman Temple, Senguttapalayam which is survey No.137/2. Against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. The Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner only for appointment of the Commissioner to find out the age of the coconut trees. Learned District Munsif should have either allowed the application or dismissed the same. There is no reason to impose costs. 4. The Courts have no unfettered power to impose costs; that power to impose costs cannot be used whimsically. The cost that has been imposed is in the nature of exemplory costs (it is not the costs incurred by other party for the Court proceedings). Exemplory Cost is, or can be imposed only when the Courts are of the opinion that a proceedings before the Court was initiated frivolously, or when the Court is of the opinion that the precious time of the Court is wasted by any person due to raising any plea where there are no triable issues or under such similar circumstances. Exemplory Cost is, or can be imposed only when the Courts are of the opinion that a proceedings before the Court was initiated frivolously, or when the Court is of the opinion that the precious time of the Court is wasted by any person due to raising any plea where there are no triable issues or under such similar circumstances. Further costs can be awarded to the respondents or to any governmental organisation and to any institution connected with Government. In the present case, when the petitioner moved the Court for grant of patta under Section 2(c), it cannot be concluded that there was no legal issues involved. Hence, it cannot be considered as frivolous or waste of precious time of the Courts. Hence, there was no justification for imposing exemplory costs. 5. Under these circumstances, the order of the learned District Munsif, passed in I.A.No.795 of 2003 in O.S.No.139 of 2003 not legally sustainable. Hence, is set aside. The learned District Munsif is directed to pass orders on merits of the application for appointment of a commissioner. 6. In the result, the above civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, connected C.M.P.is closed. No costs.