BHARAT TRADERS TIRUPATHUR Vs. S R VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupathur, North Arcot, in O.S. No. 66 of 1976. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of amounts due on two promissory notes with future interest and costs. The defendants did contest the suit by filing a written statement contending for dismissal of the suit with costs. One redeeming feature was that the defendants deposited the suit claim on the first healing date itself. Hence, the only contest was with reference to the award of costs in the suit. The Court below has discussed the factors which justify the award of costs and has accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for costs alone. It is found that there were, in fact, demands for payment earlier to the filing of the suit. The defendants have not disputed the demands made by the plaintiff. The third defendant, examined as D.W. 1, admitted the receipt of the notice issued by the plaintiff on 1st July, 1976, under the original of Exhibit A-3. What he would state is that he was demanding the correct and proper account There was a reply by the defendants to the plaintiff, as could be seen Exhibit A-4 and there, the defendants have raised an issue, that the plaintiff could not claim interest at the rate received in the promissory note and there was an agreement to pay interest at a lesser rate. The plaintiff issued a further notice through his counsel, as could be seen from Exhibit A-5. Further, the evidence of D. W. 1 is that he met the plaintiff after the last notice for the purpose of discharging the debts. Significantly, this version has not been put forth in the written statement of the defendant. The suit came to be filed long after the last notice,. These features have been taken note of by the Court below for the purpose of exercising its discretion in awarding costs to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE general rule is that costs shall follow the event and a successful party is entitled to his costs, unless there is a good cause for depriving him of the same. Costs in the lis shall be in the discretion of the Court. When the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court, it should not be interfered with in the absence of sufficient grounds. THE appellate Court is not supposed to consider the matter of costs as if it is trying the suit once again and the appellate Court can only scan the reasoning of the Court below to find out whether the discretion has been exercised properly. THEre are well settled norms for interference by the appellate Court in the matter of discretion exercised by the first Court with regard to costs in the lis. Interference by the appellate Court will be warranted only if the first Court has not exercised any discretion at all or the exercise of discretion is not judicial, or where the exercise of such discretion is in violation of any well-settled principle, or it is the result of a misapprehension of fact or of .law. On going through the judgment of the Court below, I am not able to spell out any of the above infirmities in it, so as to compel me to interfere with the discretion of the Court below in the matter of costs. Accordingly, I have no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal, and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, and taking note of the fact that this appeal is directed against the costs only there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.