Mrs. Malek P. Manji v. Mrs. Halima M. Hizam, Civ. Rev. 5-D-68, 3/9/69, Duff J.

Mrs. Malek P. Manji v. Mrs. Halima M. Hizam, Civ. Rev. 5-D-68, 3/9/69, Duff J.

            The respondent instituted proceedings in the District Court. The suit was then withdrawn on the respondent’s liberty being given to file a fresh suit. Instead of the prescribed costs amounting to Shs. 380/-, costs of only Shs. 75/- were awarded, and no reason was given why full costs were not ordered. The appellant applied for revision under Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966. The respondent argued that the order made was appealable, but no revision lay.

            Held: “The answer lies in a ruling of Biron J. in Civil Revision No. 7 of 1965, Khaku and others v. Dharamsi and another. The learned judge in the course of his judgment said as follows:- “The provisions of section 39(1) (b) of the Magistrates” Courts Act are even wider than the repealed section 10 of the Subordinate Courts Ordinance which it replaced, in that it expressly confers additional powers on the Court, commencing with the words ‘In addition powers on the Court, commencing with the words ‘in addition to any other powers in that behalf conferred upon the High Court, the High Court may ……” I therefore have no hesitation in holding that section 39 (1) (b) confers on the High Court additional and much wider powers than those contained in section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and is not subject to any words of limitation contained in the latter section. To my mind to limit the powers of the Court in revision to cases wherefrom no appeal lies would stultify the powers of the Court to precede ex sui motu, as considerable time may well elapse – long after the time for appeal has expired – before a case which calls for revision even comes to the notice of the High Court.  I therefore hold that this Court has the power to deal in revision with an order of the district court although an appeal will lie from such order.” With these enunciations I respectfully agree and there can be no doubt that the applicant is entitled to the full award of costs which were