1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 124/2009 S.R. Patil and another Vs. Dilip Vitthalrao Mandale and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri B.N. Mohta, Adv for petitioners. Shri S.A. Dastane, Adv for respondent Nos 1 to 3 & 5 CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE J. Dated: 4 th October, 2010. This appeal against order challenges the judgment and order dated 18/07/2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Akola, in Reg. C.A. No. 64/2007. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the present appellants and a decree passed by the trial court in Reg. Civil Suit no. 469/2002 on 31.03.2007 has been set aside. The matter is 2 remanded back to the trial court for fresh decision on all issues with a direction to the trial court to permit the appellants to appear in the matter before it on 10th August, 2009 and permit them to file written statement subject to appellants’ depositing cost of Rs. 15,000/- in the trial court within 15 days from the date of their appearance. It has been further directed that on depositing the cost the original plaintiffs shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount by making an appropriate application before the trial court. 2. On 22nd September, 2009, this court issued notice for final disposal, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants that he is pressing the appeal only against the order of award of cost of Rs. 15,000/-. In response to notice issued by this court, the respondents have appeared. 3. The only point which arises in this appeal is regarding the cost of Rs. 15,000/- saddled by the Appellate Court. Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the imposition of cost of Rs. 15,000/- is too onerous and hence the said needs to be set aside. 4. It is not in dispute that the Appellate Court has 3 recorded reasons for imposition of cost of Rs. 15,000/-. Shri Mohta, learned counsel, does not dispute the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to impose cost. It is also not challenged in this appeal that the Appellate Court was wrong in remanding the matter back to the trial court. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2004(4) SCC 24, though this is an appeal from order under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of C.P.C., it is to be treated and dealt with as Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. This appeal, therefore, cannot be entertained unless there is a substantial question of law involved. The question whether imposition of costs is onerous or not, cannot be substantial question of law. It is a matter of discretion to be exercised by Court. 5. In view of this, I do not find any substantial question of law which arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal against order is dismissed. JUDGE Hirekhan.