1. In remanding the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court ordered 'that the costs shall abide the result.' On the re hearing the Court below in the exercise of its discretion refused to give costs to the appellant. It is contended that the language of the order of the High Court makes it incumbent upon the Court below to award costs to the person who succeeds and that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any other order. We are not prepared to agree with this contention. If the words used were ' to abide and follow the result' they may be interpreted as conveying the suggestion that the successful party must be given his costs. But the words 'abide the result 'only connote that the order as to costs is to await till decision is given in the case. They have not the effect of fettering the discretion of the trying Court. In Tetnpleton v. Laurie I.L.R. (1900) B. 230 the language was ' to follow the event '. The learned Judges held that the Court below had no discretion in the matter. The expression used in the Bombay Judgment have the same import as the words ' to abide and follow the result.' The words abide the result broadly speaking are equivalent to the words 'costs in the cause.' We are of opinion the Courts below had a discretion to apportion costs. The observations of Lord Esher in Brotherton v. Metropolitan District Railway Joint Committee (1894) I.Q.B. 666 support this view. The decision in Fani Bhushan Roy Chowdury v. Rama Sundari Debi 4 C.W.N. 343 is not inconsistent with this conclusion as pointed out by Mr. Justice Tyabji. The learned Judge is right in the view he has taken.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.