ORDER
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. This matter came up before this Court for admission on 18.1.1997, Since it is a short matter, the notice of motion was ordered.
2. The contesting respondents viz., respondents 1, 6 to 8 are served and Mr. T.R. Rajaraman appears for the 8th respondent and there is no representation for other respondents and they have been set ex parte even in lower court in I.A. No. 569 of 1996 which is the subject-matter of this revision petition.
3. The civil revision petition challenges the order of the principle District Munsif, Arni, passed in I.A. No. 569 of 1996 in O.S. No. 195 of 1990. The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed a petition to receive the lease deed and mark the lease deed as one of the documents in support of his claim in the suit. The respondents 1, 7, 8 and 9 have filed a counter-affidavit stating that no reasons are given for the production of the document at a very late stage. The Principal District Munsif, Arni held that the document is a necessary document and it should be taken on file. However, he ordered that the petitioner should pay a total cost of Rs. 2,000 and the petitioner was directed to pay to each of the contesting respondents viz., respondents 1, 7, 8 and 9 a sum of Rs. 500 each. It is this part of the order that is, ordering payment of Rs. 2,000 as costs to the contesting respondents is the subject-matter of this civil revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that payment of Rs. 2,000 as costs to the contesting respondents by the petitioner, who is a poor tenant is harsh and considering the petitioner’s circumstances, it should be reduced to nil. Learned Counsel for the 8th respondent submitted that the trial court has exercised its discretion in awarding the cost and this Court, sitting in revision, should not interfere in the exercise of the discretion used by the trial court.
5. I have carefully considered the contention of the parties. The petitioner though was directed to pay to each of the contesting respondents Rs. 500 the consolidated amount to be paid by the petitioner comes to Rs. 2,000 for marking a document, which the trial court found it to be relevant for the purpose of the case. No doubt, there is a delay in filing the application for the production of the document, but on that account, I am of the view that the petitioner should not have been mulcted with a huge cost of Rs. 2,000, the law does not contemplate or authorise the trial Judge to insist on the payment of costs for receiving the additional documents. No doubt, it is purely at the discretion of the trial Judge to order the payment of cost, as the circumstances of the case warrant the payment of costs. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what would be proper amount of cost that should be paid and how much should be paid and it is not advisable to lay down any rule on that aspect. Each case must depend upon the facts of the case. However, when the court insists upon payment of cost, as a condition for the reception of additional evidence, the condition imposed for the reception of the document should not be excessive or onerous or harsh or oppressive which may amount to denial of justice. The amount fixed should be reasonable. On the perusal of records, I am of the view that the sum of Rs. 2,000 fixed as a condition for the reception of additional document is unreasonable, and no reasons are given for fixing the said amount. Since no reasons are given for the exercise of the discretion, this Court can interfere. The court litigation cannot be a source of windfall profit. Therefore, I held that if an excessive amount is ordered to be paid to the respondents, it will result in denial of justice to the petitioner to adduce additional evidence. Considering the facts of the case, I direct the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 500 to the contesting respondents 1, 7, 8 and each will be entitled to an equal amount out of Rs. 500. The petitioner is directed to pay to the respondents 1,7,8 and 9 the said amount within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The civil Revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs, Consequently, C.M.P. No. 153 of 1997 is dismissed.