IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1450 of 2007 Lalan Prasad Kuar & Anr Versus Maheshwar Kuar & Ors ---------------------------------- 5 24-11-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 30-3-2007 passed by Subordinate Judge-III, Siwan, in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2002 by which the learned court below has allowed the prayer for restoring the Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1996 From the impugned order as well as from the submission of the parties, it appears that Title Suit No. 133 of 1974 has been filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties, but the same suit was dismissed for default on 17-3-1983. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Case No. 13 of 1983 for restoration of the suit which was allowed on 7-8-1988. Unfortunately, again the suit came to be dismissed for default on 15-6-1995. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1995 for restoration of the suit. Peculiar enough, this miscellaneous case also came to be dismissed in default and for restoration of this miscellaneous case another Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1996 had been filed. The pathetic part of this entire episode is that this Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1996 itself stood dismissed for default on 7-8-1998. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2002 for restoration of Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1996. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears 2 that the learned court below although has recorded the finding that there have been gross latches on the part of the plaintiffs in conducting the case, but still in the interest of justice it has allowed the latest miscellaneous case i.e., Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 2002 imposing cost of Rs. 500/- upon the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Both the learned counsels have very fairly conceded to the legal proposition that the dispute with regard to the immovable properties should be decided as far as possible on merit and on contest and the decision by default or an ex-parte manner should be avoided. From the history of the present litigation, it appears that the suit has been filed in the year 1974 but still the proceedings arising for its restoration are pending. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and the stakes of the parties and also in view of the stand of the learned counsels for both the parties , it appears just and proper that the suit itself be heard and disposed of on merits without any further delay and within a fixed time frame and further the defendants-petitioners should also be compensated for the expenses and harassment they had incurred and suffered due to negligence, inaction and laches on the part of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. For the foregoing reasons, this revision application is disposed of with a direction to the court below to restore the T.S.No. 133 of 1994 to its original file and position and dispose it of within six months from the date of production/receipt of this order. Both the parties have agreed to the disposal of all the 3 miscellaneous cases relating to the ultimate restoration of the suit itself and get the suit itself decided on merits within the aforesaid time frame and as such the miscellaneous cases referred above stand disposed of resulting in the restoration of the suit itself. Both the parties have agreed that they will extend all co-operation in the disposal of the suit within the aforesaid time frame by completing their pleadings, if so required, leading their evidence and concluding their arguments without taking unnecessary and avoidable adjournments. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.8,000/-(eight thousand) to the defendants- petitioners which shall be paid by the plaintiffs-opposite parties within one month and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-opposite parties has agreed that the said cost will be deposited in the court below within one month from today. After deposit of this amount the court below shall permit the defendants-petitioners to withdraw the said amount. If the cost is not paid within the aforesaid specified time, the order of dismissal of the suit shall revive and it will be deemed that the plaintiff- opposite parties are interested only in elongating the proceedings.. This civil revision application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. roy ( V. Nath, J.)