IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1677 of 2008 HANUMAN PRASAD BAJORIA @ HANUMAN BAJORIYA Versus LAKSHMI GOSWAMI & ORS ----------- 2 30/9/2008 In the opinion of this Court the impugned order recalling the exparte order at the instance of petitioner, who is respondent in the appeal on payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- does not suffer from any jurisdictional error keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case. The appeal filed on 4.12.2006 by the opposite parties remained pending despite service of notice both under ordinary process and under registered cover in the petitioner. The opposite parties had to take steps for substituted service by incurring expenditure of a sum of Rs. 12,600/- for publication of the notice in the ‘Times of India’. In fact the petitioner did not appear for almost one year even after publication of notice leading to an order for ex-parte hearing of the appeal on 16.7.2007. An appearance was made by the petitioner only on 16.1.2008 with a prayer that the exparte order passed in appeal on 16.7.2007 should be recalled. 2 The court below has given cogent reasons for recalling the exparte order, but at the same time balancing equities, he has sought to compensate to the appellant-opposite parties both for the delay of more than two years caused in disposal of appeal and also for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,600/- only spent on publication of notice in the newspaper. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as with regard to cost of Rs. 15000/- which under the circumstances appear to be just and proper. Accordingly, this application is dismissed and the court below is directed to first realize the amount of cost before allowing the petitioner to contest the appeal. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar