IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.312 of 2007 ---- Sachidanand Singh S/o Late Brahmadev Narain Singh, Resident of Village- Phulwaria, P.S. and Anchal- Mahua, P.O.- Nirja Nagar, District- Vaishali. At present resident of Village- Bhuskaul Tola Ramsala, P.O.- Bhuskaul, P.S.- Darbhanga Sadar, District-Darbhanga. -- Plaintiff-appellant-petitioner. Versus 1. Nathuni Yadav S/O Sri Ugeshwar Yadav, 2. Smt. Jagtarini Devi W/o Vishwanath Paswan, Both R/o Village-Basudevpur, Tola- Narla, P.S. Keoti, P.O.- Keoti, District-Darbhanga. 3. Dineshwar Paswan S/o Akshay Paswan 3.(a) Deep Narayan Paswan. 3(b) Shambhu Paswan 3 (c) Anil Paswan 3 (d) Ashok Paswan 3(a) to 3(d) sons of Dineshwar Paswan. R/o Village- Ramsala, P.O. Bhuskaul, P.S.- Darbhanga Sadar, District-Darbhanga. 4. Suresh Yadav 5. Hari Yadav Sons of Damodar Yadav. R/o Village-Basudeopur, Tola Pitho, P.S. Keoti, District- Darbhanga. -- Defendants-Respondents-Opposite parties. ------ For the petitioner : M/s Binoy Krishna Shukla and Prashant Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties: None. 02. 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by plaintiff-appellant- petitioner challenging that part of order dated 06.11.2006 by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.III, Darbhanga directed payment of cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the other side while allowing the application of the plaintiff-appellant for setting aside abatement in Title Appeal No.39 of 2003. 3. It transpires that the petitioner had filed Title Suit No.68 of 1990 which was dismissed by the learned trial court and against - 2 - the judgment and decree of the trial court, he filed Title Appeal No.39 of 2003. However, in the said title appeal, respondent no.3 Gangajali Devi died and due to non-substitution of her heirs within the prescribed period of limitation, the title appeal abated against her heirs. It transpires that much thereafter on 04.12.2004, the plaintiff- appellant-petitioner filed a petition for condoning the delay and setting aside abatement. The learned court below considered the entire matter in detail which is apparent from the impugned order and subsequently allowed the said application and set aside the abatement, but made it subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000.00 by the appellant to the respondents in equal proportion. 4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court below has considered the matter in detail and passed the impugned order which is well within his jurisdiction. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)