SRIMATI SAILABALA DEVI Vs. NARASINGHA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff is the Appellant in this case. She filed a Money Suit bearing No. 264 of 1977 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack for, realisation of a sum of Rs. 4,000/ - towards principal under a promissory note and Rs. 1,429/ - towards interest from the Defendant.

(2.) IT was the case of the Plaintiff, that the Defendant was in urgent need of money and borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/ - from her on 26 -10 -1974 and in evidence thereof executed a promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant had not repaid the loan with interest inspite of repeated demands the Plaintiff was forced to file the suit. In the suit the Defendant was set ex parte. The Plaintiff had examined her husband -Gopabandhu Panda as P.W. 1 who had stated that the amount of Rs. 4;0001 - was received by the Defendant from the Plaintiff who had executed a Promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff and the said promissory note was marked as Ext -1. The Plaintiff was a registered money -lender and bad obtained a, certificate from the sub divisional Officer, Jagatsinghpur under Section 18 -B (2) of the Orissa Money -Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1939. The trial Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to get the claimed amount in the suit and disallowed the cost on the ground, that the Plaintiff had filed the suit without giving any notice prior to filing of the same. Against that part of the order dated 20 -3 -1980 refusing cost to the Plaintiff and the decree dated 28 -3 -1980 pursuant thereto, the present Appellant had preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE general rule in that costs shall follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, otherwise, orders. This means that the successful party is entitled to costs unless he is guilty of misconduct or there is some other good cause for not awarding costs to him.