JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4.3.2004 passed the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Revision No.497 of 2003 whereby and whereunder an order dated 20.2.2003 passed by Munsif Biharshrif, Nalanda in Miscellaneous Case No.19 of 1998 setting aside an ex parte decree, was reversed.

3. Plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit as Secretary of Magadh Raj Jarsandh Akhara, Rajgir. In the said suit six defendants were impleaded as parties. It was, inter alia, contended that although the plaintiff had been in uninterrupted possession of Plot No.5180, the defendants attempted to take forcible possession of land measuring 9 decimals.

In the said suit, the defendants filed a joint written statement. During the pendecy of the said suit, however, the defendants No.2 and 5 entered into compromise with the plaintiff. A compromise petition filed by the parties thereto was accepted. Indisputably, talks for compromise were going on by and between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 6; however, no compromise petition was filed in that behalf. Although witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff were cross-examined on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 6, they did not adduce any evidence.

The learned Munsif, Biharsharif decreed the suit, stating :

"After contest this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff partly on the basis of the compromise petition and partly after contest. If the defendants have effected any possession over the disputed land during pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff will have full right to effect eviction of the defendants with the assistance of the court on payment of proper cost. No order regarding any cost is being given in the suit."

4. Appellants herein, having come to know of the said ex parte decree passed against them, filed an application in terms of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They examined a large number of witnesses in support of their case.

5. We may notice that plaintiff's evidence was closed on 18.5.1995. The learned Judge thereafter was transferred. The learned District Judge transferred the said case by an administrative order dated 20.2.1997. There is nothing on record to show that the counsel appearing on behalf of the other defendants were the advocate of the appellants herein also. By reason of an order dated 20.2.2003, the learned Judge while considering the case of the appellants that they were kept in dark about the development of the case due to connivance of the respondents herein as they had been informed that the compromise had been entered into by some of the parties and the Presiding Officer has been transferred, noticed :

"Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the applicant and all of them supported the facts mentioned in the miscellaneous application. Witness No.2 Chinta Devi is herself opposite party No.2 and has clearly stated in examination in chief that she is prepared to contest the suit and therefore, the suit should be revived, on behalf of the opposite party one witness was examined in support of the rejoinder. Witness No.1 is himself opposite party No.1. In the examination in chief he has stated that the applicant has filed the miscellaneous application with the intention of causing harassment to him because the applicant had information about the suit. Therefore, the application should be dismissed."

It was directed :

"After hearing both parties and after perusal of records, I find that the applicant has furnished satisfactory reasons to show that he had no information about developments in Suit No.67/90 and his application for revival is fit to be accepted but will cost.

Therefore the miscellaneous application is accepted subject to cost of Rs.200/- under Order 9 Rule 13. And the ex parte decree in original suit No.67/90 is rescinded."

6. A revision application was filed thereagainst.

The High Court pas