1. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether the District Munsif was justified in disallowing costs to the appellants. The appellants succeeded before the District Munsif who refused him costs on the ground that there was hard swearing on both sides. He does not in the course of his judgment state whether the case was unnecessarily protracted by the appellants adducing irrelevant or false evidence. In para. 18 he says:
It is likely that they would have been reaching the Punta S. F. Nos. 153 and-155 by passing over S. F. Nos. 156 and 157 and taking their carts and cattle thereby.
2. He does not say that the evidence is false. In cases of this kind it is not proper to disallow costs to the successful party on the ground that some evidence adduced by that party is false. If the time of the Court is wasted by false or unnecessary evidence the Court would be justified in refusing costs to the successful party. The reason given by the District Munsif for disallowing costs is not a satisfactory one. I therefore ,set aside his decree as regards costs and allow this appeal with costs throughout.