IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.328 of 2008 1. Yogendra Mishra 2. Ravindra Mishra, both sons of Sri Jai Bahadur Mishra 3. Rajendra Mishra 4. Gunjeshwar Mishra, both sons of Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, all residents of Village Puraina, P.O. Maheshpur, P.S. Vijayeepur, District-Gopalganj ----- Plaintiffs --- Petitioners. Versus 1. Lakho Devi, wife of Ram Pyare Ram. 2. Ram Pyare Ram, son of Charitar Ram. 3. Secretary, Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Arar More, Gopalganj, P.O. & P.S. Gopalganj, Distt. Gopalganj --- Defendants Ist Set ---Opposite Parties Ist Set. 4. Haridwar Mishra, son of Munshi Mishra 5. Ajit Mishra 6. Sarbjit Mishra, both sons of Paras Mishra. 7. Ramjit Mishra 8. Mahendra Mishra 9. Nagendra Mishra, all sons of Bishwanath Mishra, all O. Ps. are residents of Village Puraina, P.S. Vijayeepur, District-Gopalganj except O.P. No.3 --- Defendants 2nd Set - --- Opposite Parties IInd set. ---- Opposite Parties. ---------- 2. 30.7.2010 None appears on behalf of the parties. The plaintiffs have preferred this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is directed against the order dated 10.1.2008, passed by the learned Munsif, Gopalganj, in Title Suit No.189 of 2005 (Yogendra Mishra Vrs. Lakho Devi), whereby his application for permission to examine his witnesses has been allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/-. It appears on a perusal of the materials before us 2 that the present petitioners have instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No. 189 of 2005. They failed to produce their witnesses in spite of the direction of the court as a result of which they were not permitted to produce their witnesses. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the aforesaid application stating therein that they may be permitted to produce the witnesses. The same has been allowed by the impugned order on the payment of costs of Rs.200/-. The plaintiffs raise a grievance before this Court about imposition of costs. It appears to us that the learned court below was very lenient to the petitioners in imposition of costs of Rs.200/- only. It is an interlocutory order and surely it is not ‘case decided’ within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this application is not maintainable. This civil revision application is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )