Suppression of a stay order and miscommunication justified costs for causing unnecessary court attendance.

Miscommunication of an ad interim stay order, coupled with suppression of the manner in which it was conveyed, was treated as misfeasance warranting costs. The appellant did not provide a certified copy to the departmental officer and instead used a declaration with a handwritten endorsement suggesting that stay had been granted, but later did not disclose the true communication method when the matter was mentioned. This caused the Superintendent to be summoned unnecessarily and away from official duties. Costs were upheld and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount within seven days.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conduct in miscommunicating the ad interim stay order and suppressing a material fact warranted imposition of costs.

Analysis: The ad interim stay had been granted earlier, but the appellant did not furnish a certified copy to the departmental and instead produced a declaration with a handwritten endorsement suggesting that stay had been granted. When the matter was later mentioned, the true manner of communication was not disclosed, leading to the Superintendent being summoned unnecessarily. The Court treated this as a case of misfeasance and suppression of a material fact, noting that the departmental officer had been compelled to attend the Court away from official duties because of the appellant's conduct.

Conclusion: Costs were rightly imposed on the appellant, and the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 with the Government within seven days.

---