UMEDSINGH MEHTA Vs. KALULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's second appeal which arises out of a suit filed in the court of the City Munsiff, Udaipur, in Samvat 2003, for redemption of property, alleged to have been mortgaged by the plaintiff's father with the defendants' grand-father in Samvat 1988 for a sum of Rs. 1551 / -. The defendants, in their separately filed written statements opposed the suit on a common ground, namely, that in a previous suit filed by the plaintiff a decree was obtained which was rendered infructuous on the plaintiff's failure to pay the mortgage money within time specified in the decree. The suit was ultimately decreed by the trial court and an appeal filed against that decree was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. But neither court allowed costs of litigation to the plaintiff. It is against this part of the order, of the courts below that the plaintiff has filed this second appeal and the only point agitated in it is that the plaintiff should have been given costs in the suit.

(2.) KALULAL has failed to appear inspite of notice and the appeal has been heard exparte against him. The other two respondents are present and they were heard. It may be mentioned here that the trial court gave no reasons for disallowing costs to the successful-party. The learned District Judge, however, has said, while disallowing the plaintiff's appeal for costs, that there were no complicated issues raised by the defedants and the tiral did not take very long time on which ground he thought that the lower court was justified in not allowing costs to the plaintiff and on such ground he also dismissed the appeal. The learned District Judge has relied on A. I. R. 1938 Lahore 585. But this authority is obviously not applicable to the case in hand, in as much as, the trial Judge in that case had assigned reasons for disallowing costs to the successful party. Moreover, from the aforesaid ruling it is clear that the appellate court will refuse to interfere with the order of costs only if the Judge gives reasons for his order disallowing costs and those reasons are sufficient and sound. Section 35 of Civil Procedure Code provides that the costs of the suit shall be in the discretion of the court. Such discretion, however, must be judicial discretion to be exercised on legal principles not by chance, medley, nor by caprice, nor in temper. The general rule is 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. In this case, the plaintiff's suit was not decreed on the defendant's admission of the claim, which was opposed by the defendants and the suit was decreed inspite of it. The fact that the case did not take very long time is no ground to disallow costs in the suit to the successful party. We accordingly accept this appeal and set-ting aside the order of the two courts below disallowing costs to the plaintiff, we hereby order that the plaintiff shall get his costs in the suit throughout. This appeal is accordingly accepted with costs. .