JUDGMENT S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Appellate in both the appeals is the same plaintiff. He filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 117 of 1978 and 439 of 1980. O. S. No. 117 of 1978 was against three defendants for amounts due under pronotes. O. S. No. 439 of 1980 was against one of them for loan amount evidenced by a letter. The suits were filed since the amounts were not paid after repeated demands and notice. Defendants raised false and frivolous contentions denying" liability, pleading want of consideration in part and claiming discharge also. All these contentions were negatived on the basis of the evidence and both the suits were decreed in full. The decrees have become final and conclusive as they were not taken up in appeal. In the cross examination of the appellant, a question was asked whether he is a money lender having licence. He said he was formerly a money lender having licence, but he stopped the business and surrendered the licence. In the written statement there was no such contention. He was also not called upon to produce the licence or any record evidencing surrender of licence or stoppage of money lending. That was not an issue in the case and these records were not necessary to prove the case of the appellant or maintain his suits. But the Trial Court disallowed him costs in both the suits for the sole reason that he did not produce records. These two appeals are directed only against the decrees to the extent cost was disallowed. 2. Costs and incidents to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court. Courts 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 directions for that purpose. But that discretion is not an arbitrary or unfettered one. It is a judicial discretion to be exercised on sound judicial principles based on sound reasonings. As Sub-section (2) of S.35 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicates, the normal rule is that costs should follow the event and the successful party is entitled to his costs. When there is a deviation from this rule, the court is bound to assign sound judicial reasons. As Sub-section (2) of S.35 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicates, the normal rule is that costs should follow the event and the successful party is entitled to his costs. When there is a deviation from this rule, the court is bound to assign sound judicial reasons. The exercise of the discretion is also subjected to such conditions and limitations, as may be prescribed and provisions of any law for the time being in force. The object of S.35 in awarding costs to a litigant is to secure to him the expense incurred by him in the litigation for which the responsibility does not lie on him and not to make anything in the way of gain of profit over and above the expenses for maintaining or defending the action, nor to give exemplary damages or smart money, by way of penalty or punishment on the opposite party. S.35 A and B are there in those areas. Apart from S.35, the High Court is having wide discretion in the exercise of its inherent powers to award or disallow costs in suitable cases, if it finds necessary to do so in the interest of justice. 3. The conditions and limitations 'prescribed' are those prescribed by rules and forms contained in the first schedule or made under S.122 or 125. Order XI R.3, Order XIII R.2 and 4, Order XIX R.3(2), O.21 R.72(3), O.23 R.1(3), Order XXIV R.4, Order XXVIIA R.3, Order XXXII R.4(4) and 5(2), Order XXXIII R.10, 11(2) and 16, Order XXXIV R.10 (3) and Order XXXV R.3 are some among the conditions and limitations, subject to which the discretion has to be exercised. Some of the provisions of law, subject to which the discretion has to be exercised, are Administrator General's Act III of 1913 S.40, S.27 of the Laud Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, S.22 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act XV of 1882 and S.13 (1) (d) of the Specific Relief Act 47 of 1963. Subject to these and other conditions and limitations and the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the discretion can be exercised on sound judicial principles bearing in mind that the normal rule is that cost should follow . the event and the contrary should be supported by recorded reasons. Subject to these and other conditions and limitations and the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the discretion can be exercised on sound judicial principles bearing in mind that the normal rule is that cost should follow . the event and the contrary should be supported by recorded reasons. We have also to bear in mind that by way of costs what a party is getting is only negligible portion of what he spends on the whole for the litigation. 4. Even though no hard and fast rule could be laid down, the exercise of the discretion must be depending on the circumstances of each particular case based on sound legal principles and not by caprice or chance or humour. The length of trial, the complicated questions involved and the conduct of the parties before court are some of the circumstances to be taken into account. Grounds irrelevant to the action should not" be taken into account. The discretion is very wide and it extends to disallowing costs of the successful party and even to make him pay the costs of the losing party. In cases of partial success and failure, court can apportion costs. When both parties are guilty of bad faith, an order to suffer costs may be & proper exercise of discretion. When the law is settled for. the first time also, such a course will be justified; so also in test cases. When the defence is frivolous and the plaintiff, who is not guilty of misconduct, succeeds, costs on the contested scale should normally be allowed. 5. The view of the judge on the equity and the tragedy on the human side, the moral as well as the legal merits, conduct of the parties before and during litigation and other like intangible factors have a play in shaping the judicial verdict regarding costs (A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma- AIR 1971 Kerala 261), When a plaintiff succeeds in a litigation, for which he was not responsible and he was not guilty of misconduct he ought not to be deprived of his legitimate costs. That is all the more so when the defendant, who necessitated the litigation, is guilty of misconduct also. 'Cost could be disallowed if there are other good causes also. The court must give reasons in writing in support of the discretion. That is all the more so when the defendant, who necessitated the litigation, is guilty of misconduct also. 'Cost could be disallowed if there are other good causes also. The court must give reasons in writing in support of the discretion. In the exercise of that discretion, an appellate court may be slow to interfere unlike in a case in which the relief is as a matter of right. Frivolous and vexatious contentions, delay caused by conduct, change of contentions, conflicting and mala fide contentions, etc are some of the considerations in the exercise of the discretion. 6. Viewed on any of these considerations, the exercise of the discretion of the Trial Court cannot be justified. Appellant had no other go but to file the two suits because in spite of demands and notices, the amounts were not paid. He did not raise any false claim and his claim in full was allowed. He was not guilty of any misconduct. The defendants, who necessitated the litigations, raised false contentions and the appellant had to adduce evidence. The questions whether he was a money lender, whether he had a licence, whether the licence was surrendered are all matters unnecessary for a decision of the case. He was not bound to produce those records and he was not asked to produce also. The exercise of the discretion was arbitrary and wrong. Atleast, with hesitation, I have to interfere. Both the appeals are allowed. The decrees and judgments of the court below disallowing cost are reversed and the appellant is allowed his costs in both cases before the Trial Court and this court from the respondents and their assets.