' This Civil Revision arises out of the order dated 20-5-1985 by the Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan, whereby he imposed cost of Rs, 2,000 only on the petitioner/defendant.
2. The suit in the instant case was filed by the pre-emptor, Akbar Ali, respondent No,1. On 20-5-1985, the petitioner/defendant had applied for an adjournment on the basis of his having been invited to a seminar at Bahawalpur by the Commissioner of Bahawalpur in his capacity as a Member of the Provincial Assembly (M.PA.). However, the petitioner/defendant had invoked his privilege as an M.P.A. Under section 4, subsection (v) of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972, whereby he was exempted from attending the Court 14 days before the commencement of the Session of the Provincial Assembly and 14 days after the prorogation of the said Assembly. While adjourning the case, the learned Senior Civil Judge had nevertheless imposed the said cost on the petitioner/defendant.
3. In the present revision petition the following two points are contended on behalf of the petitioner/defendant:--
(i) That as a Member-elect of the Provincial Assembly he was exempted from attending the Court, as stated above, 14 days before and 14 days after the Session of the Assembly;
(ii) And in the alternative, that the cost was not commensurate with the occasion nor just and reasonable.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the revision on the ground that it is nowhere stated that the Provincial Assembly was in Session nor that the petitioner/defendant had been sworn in as the Member of the said Assembly to be able to invoke the said privileges, and his second contention was that the respondents/plaintiffs had suffered great loss due to adjournment of the suit on the said date as, thereafter, the suit for pre-emption could not be decreed as a result of the decision of the superior Courts.
' The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived and irrelevant, therefore, untenable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that it cannot be confirmed from the record that the petitioner had been sworn in as a Member of the Provincial Assembly or a definite date of the Session of the said Assembly had been announced. Therefore, there is no case for interference under the revision jurisdiction on the basis of the privilege contended on behalf of the petitioner.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argued that even if It be accepted that the cost should have been awarded on the date in question, then the same should have been just and reasonable, and in commensurate with the relevant facts and circumstances, and that it should not have been punitive or oppressive. To support his contention the learned counsel relied upon Gajendra Shah v. Ram Charan AIR 1930 Oudh 171, wherein it was held that the costs to be awarded should not be of the nature of penalty or of punishment but should be commensurate with the occasion. The second authority cited was Muhammad Bakhsh v. Shahu and others AIR
(29) 1942 Lah. 162 (2), wherein it was held that the costs should not be punitive and should be such as can reasonably be said to have been occasioned by the adjournment. The third case relied upon is Sharafat Hussain v. Shakil Ahmed AIR 1953 Bhopal 6, hereto it was held that the costs should be reasonable. The next authority relied upon was H.M. Sadiq & Co., Lyallpur v. Volkart (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi through their Attorney (PLD 1976 Lah. 1460), which was to the effect that the costs should not be disproportionate to the occasion and evince lack of judicial poise.
' The latest authority in this respect is Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Delite House Ltd. And 4 others (PLD 1987 Lah. 51), a D.B. Judgment, wherein it was held that awarding of costs being discretionary, such discretion could be exercised keeping in view particular circumstances of individual case and in accordance with the principles of reasons and justice and that one of the considerations to allow or refuse to allow costs in a case is the conduct of party in actual litigation.
7. The learned counsel for the parties had failed to point out that the relevant section 5 of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972 was applicable at the relevant time i.e. On 20th May, 1985, the date on which the costs of Rs,2,000. Was imposed on the petitioner/defendant.
The section 5 of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Privileges Act, 1972 is as follows:-- "Freedom from appearance in civil cases etc.-- ' Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, no Civil or Revenue Court and no Commission or Election Tribunal shall proceed during a session of the Assembly and for a period of fourteen days before and fourteen days after the Session, with any matter before it in which a Member is a party, unless the privilege conferred by section 4 is waived, by application made in writing to the Court, Commission or Tribunal, as the case may be, by the Member concerned with the matter, and where more Members than one are so concerned, by all of them."
8. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court had adjourned the case in the interest of justice but nevertheless imposed Rs, 2,000 as costs on the petitioner/defendant which under the circumstances was excessive. Therefore, placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this civil revision is partly accepted and the cost awarded is reduced to Rs, 500 and, therefore, the impugned order stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs.