(1.) Petitioner-plaintiff have filed this petition challenging the order dated 15/12/2007 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19/2007 by the District Judge Vidisha. The petitioners plaintiffs also challenged an order dated 23/4/2007 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Vidisha In MJC No. 9/2006.
(2.) Petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was registered as Civil Suit No. 25. A/1995, which was dismissed in default on 27/11/2001. For setting aside the aforesaid order the plaintiffs- petitioners filed an application on 1/1/2001 under Order 9 Rule 1 CPC. It was registered as MJC No. 9/2006. The trial Court ordered issuance of notice on the aforesaid application and directed the plaintiffs-petitioners to pay process fees (Talwana) vide order dated 16.11.2005. The plaintiffs-petitioners did not pay the process fees (Talwana). Thereafter the case was listed on 7.7.2006,13.11.2006 and up to 23.4.2007. Upto aforesaid date i.e. 23.4.2007 the process fees (Talwana) was not paid on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners, hence, the trial Court rejected the application for restoration of suit of the plaintiffs petitioners under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. Against the aforesaid order an appeal was filed and that has also been rejected.
(3.) From the facts of the case, it is clear that in spite of the order of the trial Court the process fees (Talwana) was not paid by the plaintiffs-petitioners. The plaintiffs-petitioners submitted an application to this effect that they instructed the counsel, however, the counsel did not deposit the required process fees (Talwana). From the facts of the case, it appears that the plaintiffs - petitioners were negligent in depositing the process fees (Talwana) as ordered by the trial Court. However, looking to the merits of the case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to grant one more time to deposit the porcess fees (Talwana) to the plaintiff-petitioners on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only).