Modi, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in the matter of costs only.
(2.) IT is unnecessary to narrate the facts of the case in any detail. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit in the court of the Munsiff, City Jodhpur, against appellant-defendant for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of a shop. The trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment but partially decreed it so far as arrears of rent were concerned. An appeal was taken by the plaintiffs from that decree to the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, who dismissed it by his judgment dated 14th December, 1951. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court did not at all exercise its discretion as regards the award of costs although it had dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, and that as the appeal had been decided in his favour, the lower court's silence in the matter of costs was quite wrong and arbitrary. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has brought to my notice, however, that the lower appellate court had in fact applied its mind to the question of costs and had stated even in its order-sheet dated 14th of December, 1951, that the appeal be dismissed with costs although it was correct that neither the judgment nor the decree contained any direction in that respect. Now it is well established that an appeal purely on a matter of costs would lie only if a court has not exercised its real discretion in the matter or has exercised it in an arbitrary or capricious manner, in other words where the discretion as to costs involves a matter of principle. It is obvious that in the present case the learned Judge below had intended to exercise his discretion, but by an unfortunate and accidental error, that direction was not incorporated either in the judgment or the decree. Under such circumstances, the only point for determination is whether the appellants need have come up to this Court in second appeal as he has done or he should have sought his remedy before the learned District Judge himself by means of an application for amendment of the decree under sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, it was entirely unnecessary for the appellant to have come up to this Court for the purpose, and his proper remedy was to have applied to the court below for the amendment in view, which, I have no doubt, that court would have allowed without any difficulty. If any authority need be cited in support of the aforesaid view, I would refer to Sadhocharan Singh vs. Mst. Ganga Kunwar (1) (A. I. R. 1920 Patna 180. ). In that case the trial court made no mention of costs in its judgment but on the following day when its attention was drawn to the omission, it made a suitable order in that regard. The contention having been raised in the High Court that the trial court had no power to add to its judgment the order as to costs, it was held by their Lordships that it had ample power to do so under sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I, therefore, hold that there is no merit in this appeal and hereby dismiss it. No order as to costs. .;