GH MOHD PANDIT Vs. AB MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The revision was dismissed on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner had failed to pay costs imposed on him while allowing his application for restoration of the suit dismissed in default of his appearance. On a careful perusal of the record, the assumption has not turned out to be correct. The factual position is that while allowing the application for restoration of the suit, the court imposed costs of Rs 25/ -. The petitioner failed to pay -the same for some time. The court felt annoyed and raised it to Rs. 145/ - Thus the amount of Rs. 120/ - was imposed on him by way of penalty for his failure to pay the amount of costs for some time. The imposition of penalty was not warranted by law. The trial court could at best dismiss the application for his failure to pay the costs. This point was not noticed by me while dismissing the petitionerâ„¢s application for restoration of the suit for non -payment of costs and penalty. This is an error apparent the face of the record. I therefore, allow this application and while recalling my order dated 16 -7 -1980 set aside the orders of the courts below dismissing the restoration application. The said application is allowed and it is directed that the suit shall be restored to its original number and dealt with in accordance with law. The order shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs. 25/ - by way of costs imposed by the trial court with additional amount of Rs. 25/ - in lieu of costs incurred by the other side in this court. The amount of Rs. 50/ - (rupees fifty) was paid to the counsel for the other side in court today. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 10th of June, 1981.