JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - 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 u/s 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. It is true that no evidence was led by the Plaintiff that he had given any prior notice to the debtor before filing of the suit. But P.W. 1 in his evidence in Court has stated that the debtor had failed to make the payment of the principal amount with interest inspite of several demands from the Plaintiff. Section 35 of the CPC which deals with costs runs thus; 35. But P.W. 1 in his evidence in Court has stated that the debtor had failed to make the payment of the principal amount with interest inspite of several demands from the Plaintiff. Section 35 of the CPC which deals with costs runs thus; 35. (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incident to all suits shall be in the discretion of the Court; and the Court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid. The fact that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of such powers. xx xx xx. There are various leading rules regarding payment of costs one of which states that "the costs shall follow the event." 4. 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. 5. In the present case the trial Court has rejected the costs in favour of the Plaintiff on the sole ground that the Plaintiff had not given prior notice of the suit to the debtor. In evidence the Plaintiff had categorically stated that inspite of several reminders the Defendant had failed to pay the borrowed' money and interest and he was forced to file the suit. The Plaintiff did not resort to any misconduct in suit proceeding which could be considered a good reason for refusing the costs in its entirety. The statement of the Plaintiff that he demanded the loan money from the Defendant on several occasions was not countered by any evidence from the side of the Defendant. Therefore, I do not find any reason for disallowing the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff in its entirety. As stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Plaintiff had paid a Court fee of Rs. 659/- on the plaint filed by her. That apart she had also spent good sum of money for conducting the case by way of advocate's fee etc. As stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Plaintiff had paid a Court fee of Rs. 659/- on the plaint filed by her. That apart she had also spent good sum of money for conducting the case by way of advocate's fee etc. Accordingly I vacate the order of the trial Court relating to payment of costs and hold that the Plaintiff-Appellant is entitled to the costs in mitigation of the financial suffering he has taken in filing at the suit and it is accordingly ordered that the Plaintiff-Appellant is entitled to costs of Rs. 500/- as consolidated costs of the suit. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with cost of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed