IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3660 of 2006 RAM UDGAR MAHTON, SON OF STATE HAKRU MAHTON, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARIARPUR (PURBI), P.S.- KHODAWANDPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJENDRA MAHTON, SON OF LATE AYODHYA MAHTO. 3. RAM PAYARA MAHTO, SON OF JAJKU MAHTO. 4. AYODHYA MAHTO, SON OF JAJKU MAHTO, 5. RAM NANDAN MAHTO, SON OF RAM PAYARA MAHTO. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARIYARPUR (PURBI), P.S. KHODABANDPUR, SUBDIVISION- MANJHAUL, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI :---- DEFENDANTS…RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 10.05.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2.In compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 24.02.2011, 24.03.2011 and 04.05.2011 the Circle Officer, Khodabandpur has filed affidavit placing on record copy of Letter No. 216 dated 04.05.2011, Annexure-A which was served on Opposite Party Nos. 2-5, whereunder notice of these proceedings was served on them in compliance of the aforesaid orders of this Court. The service report of the serving peon and the local chowkidar, however, indicates that Opposite Party Nos. 2-5 refused to accept the notice of these proceedings served on them by the Circle Officer through the service peon and the local chowkidar. Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the 2 part of the order dated 30.05.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 36/99, Annexure-1, whereunder while restoring Title Suit No. 181/99 Munsif-I, Begusarai imposed a cost of Rs. 4500/- with direction to the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 2,000/- out of the said amount in the Government treasury. 3. Normally the cost imposed by the courts below is seldom interfered with by the superior Court but considering the fact that the title suit was about five years old and during the period it remained dismissed for default the plaintiff-petitioner himself suffered, the cost imposed appears to be excessive and the order restoring the suit is modified directing that the cost imposed on the plaintiff be reduced to Rs. 2,000/- out of which Rs. 1,000/- be deposited in the account of the State of Bihar and the other one thousand be handed over to the defendants. 4. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order dated 30.05.2005, Annexure-1 the writ petition is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)