IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1743 of 2006 Abdul Quadir & Ors Versus Anwar Ali & Anr ---------------------------------- 6 13-10-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The petitioners have filed this revision application against the order dated 29-6-2006 by which the learned court below has allowed the petition filed by the opposite parties/defendants for setting aside the ex-parte decree in T.S.No. 114 of 1995 after awarding cost of Rs.2000/-. The case of the petitioners is that the opposite parties had deliberately avoided appearing in the suit even when they had knowledge of the pendency of the suit. It has been further urged that the learned court below has not considered this aspect of the matter and has wrongly allowed the prayer of the opposite parties/defendants for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has supported the order and has further submitted that as per his instruction, the cost awarded by the court has been deposited in the Nazarat. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has considered the entire evidence led by the parties and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the fact of service of summons was doubtful. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court as to what injury the 2 petitioners will suffer if the matter will be decided on merits after hearing both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit itself and the only submission he has made is that he has been harassed right from 1995 and it will take further several years in the disposal of the suit. It is well-settled that all efforts should be made to get the civil litigation decided on merits instead by default or in ex-parte manner. In this view of the matter, there does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned order by which the court has directed for granting an opportunity to the opposite parties/defendants to contest the suit on merits. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper that a time-limit be fixed for disposal of the suit which is of the year 1995. The learned court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose it of preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of the order of this Court. Both the parties appearing before this Court have agreed that they would not take unnecessary adjournment and will cooperate in the disposal of the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has, however, submitted that the cost awarded by the court below should be enhanced in view of the harassment suffered by the plaintiffs/petitioners for so many years. Considering this submission of the learned counsel, the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1500/-(fifteen hundred) as cost in addition to the amount of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) as awarded by the court below and the 3 amount of cost is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.3500/-. This amount of Rs.1500/- must be deposited by the opposite parties in the court below within one month from today. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this revision application is dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)