Limited appellate interference with costs orders where judicial discretion is not arbitrary or wholly unacceptable.

An appellate court will interfere with a Single Judge's order on costs only if the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or in a wholly unacceptable manner; a mere possibility of a different view is insufficient. Applying that standard, the Karnataka HC found no infirmity in the order imposing costs and declining to disturb the relief granted in writ proceedings. As no arbitrary exercise of discretion was shown, the challenge to the costs order was rejected and the appeal failed without any further examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the Single Judge's order imposing costs and declining to interfere with the relief granted in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The appeal was under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The order under challenge involved an award of costs, a matter resting in judicial discretion. Interference in appeal is not warranted merely because a different view is possible; it is justified only where the discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or wholly unacceptable manner. No such infirmity was found in the impugned order, and therefore there was no reason to examine the merits further.

Conclusion: The challenge to the costs order was rejected and the appeal failed.

---