IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.376 of 2004 1.BUCHI RAUT, S/O Bhikhan Raut 2.BUNELA RAUT, S/O Bal Kishun Raut Both are R/O Village Inarwa, P.S. Shikarpur, Anchal Narkatiaganj,District West Champaran ………..Appellant/Petitioners. Versus 1.FULMATI DEVI, W/O Nathuni Mahto 2.SUBH NARAIN PRASAD, S/O Nathuni Sah 3.RAM NARAYAN PRASAD, S/O Nathuni Mahto 4.HARI NARAYAN PRASAD, S/O Nathuni Mahto 5.SHIV NARAIN PRASAD, S/O Nathuni Mahto 6.SMT. TARA DEVI,W/O Shubh Narayan Prasad 7.KUMARI SITA, D/O Nathuni Mahto 8.KUMARI GEETA, D/O Nathuni Mahto All are R/O Village Inarwa, P.S. Shikarpur, Anchal Narkatiaganj,District West Champaran …………Respondent/Opposite Parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Kishun Prasad, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Akhileshwar Kr. Srivastav, Adv. 8. 21.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 10.07.2004 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 08 of 1996, refusing to restore Title Appeal No. 78 of 1994, dismissed in default of payment of Court fee. It is undisputed position that the defendant-appellants had preferred Title Appeal No. 78 of 1994 before the District Judge, Bettiah at West Champaran, but in spite of directions, failed to pay the required Court fee. Consequently, vide Order dated 4.9.1995, the appeal was dismissed, giving rise to the miscellaneous case on the ground of illness etc.; 172 days delay in filing of the miscellaneous case appears as reported by the office of the District Judge. After some arguments the members of the Bar are in agreement to this petition that had the appellant been advised or able to file the Court fee along with miscellaneous case position could have - 2 - been different, apart from others in exercise of inherent powers of the Court. No doubt, there is some delay on the part of appellant, but at the same time they must not suffer only for such delay caused due to some sort of ignorance either on their part or on the part of their counsels before the Court below, but at the same time the respondents deserve to be compensated monetarily. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby allowed, impugned order is set-aside subject to payment of Rs. 800/- (eight hundered) as cost to the respondents. Title Appeal No. 78 of 1994 is order to be restored till its original file only on the payment of Court fee and cost within 45 days from today positively. Let, this order be communicated to the court below. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)