JUDGMENT Pratt, J. - This appeal relates only to costs and has reference to only one of several analogous suits which were instituted and tried together. The Plaintiffs sued upon a lease granted by one Petan Chandra Das purporting to be acting under the authority of an Am-mokhtearnamah from the Defendant No. 18, the owner of the property. The Appellant before roe, who was Defendant No. 16, in his written statement denied the Plaintiffs' right and also the power of Defendant No. 18 to grant any pottah to the Plaintiffs. The suit was instituted on the 19th March 1898, and it was not till after an Ameen deputed to make a local investigation had submitted his report and after several witnesses had been examined, that the Plaintiffs filed the lease and the Am-mokhtearnamah in question. That was done on the 17th November 1899. It then very clearly appeared to the Court that the Am-mokhtear had no authority to make the lease and the Court accordingly held that the lease was void and that the suit must fail. But in dismissing the suit, the Munsif stated as follows:-- "The Plaintiffs' discomfiture is attributable to nothing blamable on their part. It is the unfortunate result of the unhappy language in which the Am-mokhtearnamah, under the authority of which Petan Chandra granted the lease, has been clothed. I therefore do not saddle them with Defendant's costs." The Defendant No. 16 appealed on the question of costs. The Subordinate Judge held that no principle was involved in the order of the first Court refusing the Defendant his costs and he dismissed the appeal and directed that the Appellant-Defendant should pay costs to the Respondents. That Defendant now appeals, and on his behalf it is urged that the Munsif violated the general principle that costs should follow the result and that he had given no adequate reason for doing so. It is unfortunate that the Respondents are not represented in this appeal but, after giving the case my best consideration, I am of opinion that the Appellant is entitled to succeed. That a second appeal lies is clear upon the authorities and I need only mention the case of Daulat Ram v. Durga Prosad I. L. R. 15 All. 333 (1893). No doubt the lower Courts had full discretion as to costs, but that discretion must be exercised on general principles and not arbitrarily. That a second appeal lies is clear upon the authorities and I need only mention the case of Daulat Ram v. Durga Prosad I. L. R. 15 All. 333 (1893). No doubt the lower Courts had full discretion as to costs, but that discretion must be exercised on general principles and not arbitrarily. Now it appears from the judgment of the Munsif that, a few days before the institution of the suit, the Plaintiffs became aware of the defect in their lease. In the next place, we find that the Defendant at the very outset had taken the plea upon which the suit was ultimately thrown out. Thirdly, the Plaintiffs held back the lease and the Am-mokhtearnamah till a considerable time after expenses had been incurred in the case and witnesses had been examined. The Defendant was certainly not to blame in any way. Had the Plaintiffs produced these documents, as they ought to have done at a much earlier stage of the case, the preliminary issue would have been dealt with without examination of the witnesses and the incurring of other expenses connected with the case. It seems to me clear that the Plaintiffs under the circumstances must bear the blame and ought to defray the costs of the Defendant who was wholly innocent of any blame in the matter. That being so, I set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court and direct that Defendant No. 16 do receive his costs of the appeal in that Court from the Plaintiffs, and further I set aside the order of the first Court refusing costs to Defendant No. 16 and direct that he do recover his costs in that Court also from the Plaintiffs. The Appellant is also entitled to his costs in this appeal.