IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.531 of 2008 Sachita Prasad@Sachida Nand Pd. Versus Nagendra Kr.Singh@Nagendra&Ors ---------------------------------- 3 4.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 19.2.2008 in Misc. Case No.1/04 by which the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. filed by the opposite parties Ist set have been allowed. There is no dispute that Title Suit No.379 of 1989 had been earlier filed but the same was dismissed for want of presentation by order dated 25.8.1994. Thereafter the O.P. Ist set filed a petition as above said under Order 9 Rule C.P.C. praying for setting aside the dismissal of the suit on the ground that these applicants were minor when their parents died and as such they could not take step earlier. The learned court below after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff (O.P.Ist set) and after setting aside the order of dismissal has restored the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the O.P.Ist set has failed to establish sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date when the suit had been dismissed and the learned court below has wrongly passed the impugned order allowing the prayer of the O.P.Ist set. However, learned counsel for the 2 opposite party Ist set has explained the factum of non-appearance and again has reiterated that O.P. Ist set could not make pairvi in the suit due to untimely death of their parents when they were only minors and has prayed for taking a lenient view in the aforesaid circumstance. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the opposite parties Ist set on equitable ground and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order except that quantum of the cost imposed upon the opposite parties Ist set is on lower scale. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of cost is enhanced to Rs.2,500/- in place of Rs.500/- as ordered. It has been submitted on behalf of both the parties that the suit is of the year 1989 and in view of the matter as the pleadings are complete the hearing of the same may be expedited. The court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and conclude the same preferably within six months without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. With the aforesaid observations and modification this revision application is disposed of. AnilKrSinha ( V. Nath,J.)