2005 PLP 1810 (YLR)

Civil Revision No.349 and C.M. No. 1/2-C of 2005, decided on 13th April, 2005.

O. VII, R.2

Suit for recovery of amount

Costs of suit

Claim for

Total claim of plaintiff was Rs.4,21,700 but suit was partly decreed holding the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs.1,50,000 and it was further held that remaining claim was dismissed with costs

No ambiguity, whatsoever, existed in the operative part of judgment

Decree had to be in accordance with the same

Appellate Court lord very correctly found that portion of the suit decreed had not been decreed with costs, but the portion of the suit dismissed had been so dismissed (with costs). Rana Khalid Mahmood for Petitioner. On 1-10-1999 the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,21,700 against the respondent. The suit was contested. A learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, partly decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.1,50,000 and dismissed the remaining claim of the petitioner with costs. Execution proceedings were commenced. On 8-10-2004 the respondent filed an application in the Executing Court stating that he has paid almost the entire amount of the decree, However, a part of the suit was dismissed with costs and that the costs be determined. The learned Civil Judge proceeded to hold vide order dated 19-10-2004 that since Issue No.4 pertaining to special costs has been answered against the respondent, the costs awarded in the judgment and decree have been, in fact, awarded to the respondent. A first appeal filed by the respondent was heard by a learned A.D.J., Muzaffargarh, who proceeded to hold that the suit was not decreed with costs and, therefore, no costs are to be recovered from the respondent. This was done vide order dated 3-12-2004.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned A.D.J., Muzaffargarh, gives impression as if costs have been allowed to the respondent, who may recover the same.

3. I have examined the copies of the available records. As noted by me above, the total claim of the petitioner was Rs.4,21,

700. It was held that he is entitled to recover Rs.1,50,

000. It was further held that the remaining claim is dismissed with costs. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the operative part of the judgment. The decree has to be in accordance with the same. This being so, the learned A.D.J. has very correctly held that the portion of the suit decreed has not been decreed with costs but the portion of the suit dismissed has been so dismissed with costs. There is no force in the said contention which is rather an apprehension and that too wholly misplaced. I may further note here that in the decree sheet, the costs of the respondent have, in any case been worked out as Rs.4. The civil revision is frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T/F-91/L Revision dismissed.