1 wp8225.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 8225 OF 2011 Arjun Shankar Katake PETITIONER -VERSUS- Digambar S/o Kaserao Deshmukh Deceased through L.Rs. 1/1 Bhausaheb S/o Digambar Deshmukh and others RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8226 OF 2011 Mahadeo Shankar Katake PETITIONER -VERSUS- Digambar S/o Kaserao Deshmukh Deceased through L.Rs. 1/1 Bhausaheb S/o Digambar Deshmukh and others RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8227 OF 2011 Krishna Shankar Katake PETITIONER -VERSUS- Digambar S/o Kaserao Deshmukh Deceased through L.Rs. 1/1 Bhausaheb S/o Digambar Deshmukh and others RESPONDENTS ...... Smt. S.A. Dhumal (Tambat), advocate for the petitioners ...... 2 wp8225.11 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed suit for possession of agricultural land. The said suit came to be dismissed in default. Plaintiffs filed an application for restoration. The defendants resisted said application for restoration. Trial Court allowed application for restoration on payment of costs of Rs. 9,000/-. Plaintiffs filed Writ Petition challenging the order to the extent of imposing costs of Rs. 9,000/-. 2. Smt. Dhumal, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the amount of cost imposed is too exorbitant and petitioners are not in position to pay such exorbitant cost. The suit is for possession of agricultural land. The condition of cost is too onerous. The cost could not have been imposed of such amount which the petitioners could not be in position to comply. The petitioners are poor persons and agriculturists and are not in position to pay the said amount. Therefore, this Court can set aside the said condition. 3 wp8225.11 3. To impose cost is discretion of the Court. Suit was dismissed for default at the stage of evidence. All the defendants have appeared in suit and at the stage of evidence, suit was dismissed. Restoration Petition was also contested by all the defendants. The Court taking into account the fact that dispute is in respect of immovable property and other attending circumstances has restored the suit of the present petitioners. At the same time has imposed condition of cost of Rs. 9,000/- to be paid within a month. Though the cost seems to be of an amount of Rs. 9,000/-, if the number of defendants would be seen, it would be only Rs. 1,000/- to each of defendant. The arguments of learned counsel for petitioners that in each matter cost of Rs. 9,000/- is imposed which is huge can not be considered, in view of the fact that in each of the suit there are number of defendants. 4. In the light of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the present Petitions challenging the order to the extent of imposing cost. 5. In the light of the above, the Petitions being sans merit stand dismissed. The Trial Court has granted time of one month to deposit the amount, taking into account the fact that the cost is required to be paid by the petitioners in three matters, I extend the 4 wp8225.11 time granted by the trial Court to pay cost by further one month. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 8225.11