IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No. 150 of 2017 ======================================================

Chhathu Sah Gond @ Chhathu Sah Son of Late Bhoj Sah Gor, Resident of Mohalla- Baswaria Bettiah Town, P.O and P.S- Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector West Champaran at Bettiah P.O &

P.S-Bettiah, District- West Champaran

2. The District Fishery Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah, P.O. and P.S.-

Bettiah, District- West Cha

3. The Anchal Adhikari Bettiah, P.O. and P.S.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Noumaan Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Daula Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Mahtab Alam, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA -2 For the State : Mr. Ranjan Prakash, AC to GA-2 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

CAV ORDER

9 10-02-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. This present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) assailing the order dated 06.07.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2016 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Bettiah, District West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), whereby the petition dated 06.07.2017 filed by the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner for permitting deposit of cost of Rs.5,000/-, as directed earlier by order dated 21.01.2017 while restoring Title Appeal No. 12 of 2013, has been rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches.

3. The genesis of the case giving rise to the present civil revision, in brief, are that the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 7 of 2005 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Bettiah, District- West Champaran seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction with respect to the suit land, which came to be dismissed on contest by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Title Appeal No. 12 of 2013, which was admitted and later transferred to the learned Trial Court. However, the appeal was dismissed for default on 22.09.2016 due to non- prosecution. Subsequently, on an application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the CPC, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2016, the appeal was restored by order dated 21.01.2017 subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- within three weeks. Since the said cost could not be deposited within the stipulated time, the petitioner filed a petition dated 06.07.2017 seeking permission to deposit the cost, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court on the same date vide the impugned order solely on the ground of delay and laches in depositing the cost of Rs.5000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.07.2017 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner herein for permitting deposit of the aforementioned cost amount solely on the ground of delay and laches, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC, seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 06.07.2017 is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate both the factual matrix and the settled principles of law governing restoration of proceedings. It is submitted that the Title Appeal No. 12 of 2013 had already been restored by a reasoned order dated 21.01.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2016, and the direction to deposit cost of Rs.5,000/- within three weeks was merely a conditional order, non-

compliance whereof was neither wi