Appellate courts should not interfere with discretionary costs absent perversity or illegality.

The appellant challenged only the costs portion of the decree dated 23 December 2025 in Title Suit No. 1119 of 2018.

The Trial Court awarded Rs. 50,000, whereas the appellant claimed to have incurred Rs. 38,95,099 in litigation costs, allegedly arising in significant part from numerous applications and appeals pursued by the respondent.

The appellant argued that the award did not account for court fees, lawyers’ fees, or incidental expenses.

The respondent, despite notice, was unrepresented in the appeal.

Whether the Trial Court’s award of Rs. 50,000 in costs was an improper exercise of its discretion warranting appellate interference.

Whether the costs award was irrational, perverse, or contrary to law in light of the appellant’s claimed litigation expenses.

Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, places the costs of and incidental to suits within the Court’s discretion, including the determination of the amount payable; that discretion remains subject to the Code and applicable rules.

Tirumalachetti Rajaram v. Tirumalachetti Radhakrishnayya Chetty, AIR 1961 SC 1795, and Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta, (2009) 2 SCC 656, affirm that costs are discretionary.

An appellate court ordinarily will not substitute its assessment merely because a different amount could have been awarded; interference is warranted where the discretion was exercised irrationally, perversely, illegally, or otherwise improperly.

Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadkar, (2017) 5 SCC 496, concerned abuse of process and were distinguished on that basis.

The Court treated the amount of costs as a matter entrusted to the Trial Court’s discretion, which must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the particular case rather than by a uniform mathematical formula.

The appellant’s claimed expenditure and allegations concerning the respondent’s applications and appeals did not establish that the Trial Court’s award was irrational, perverse, or contrary to law.

The Court therefore found no basis to replace the Trial Court’s assessment.

The authorities concerning abuse of process did not assist the appellant because the circumstances found in those cases were distinguishable.

The appeal was dismissed, and FAT 239 of 2026 was disposed of; the Trial Court’s award of Rs. 50,000 in costs remained undisturbed.