(1.) Ghulam Qadir made an application for permission to sue as a pauper. He impleaded Ghulam Rasul and others as non-applicants in that application. After recording evidence, the learned First Additional Munsiff rejected his application. The learned Munsifl held that "the applicant had properties sufficient to pay court-fees." As regards costs, the Munsiff recorded that "the parties will bear their own costs." The non-applicants have come in revision to this Court challenging the correctness of the order made by the Munsiff as regards costs.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in this Court has drawn my attention to Sub-clause (2) of Sec. 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, which lays down that "Where the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing." I find that the learned trial Munsiff has not given any reasons for not awarding costs to the successful party. It is true that costs awardable under Sec. 35, Civil Procedure Code, are in the discretion of the Court, but it has to be borne in mind that discretion has to be exercised in a judicial manner on the basis of sound legal principles and not arbitrarily. The exercise of discretion depends upon the circumstances of each case. The circumstances however, will include the length of time spent in the trial, the number of witnesses examined and the conduct of the parties both before and after the proceedings were started.
(3.) In this case I find that as many as five witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and the inquiry in this application lasted for more than two years. Under these circumstances there is no reason why the applicants in this application should not be awarded costs. The general rule is that a successful party is entitled to costs, unless he is guilty of such misconduct as would disentitle him in the eye of law. Even then it is necessary for the trial Judge to record reasons for his not awarding costs to the successful party.