Vivek Kumar Birla, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists at length and have perused the record.
(2.) The revisionists have come up challenging the impugned order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Agra in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2015 whereby their application no. 4C praying for extension of time to deposit the cost imposed by the court below vide order dated 28.4.2012 has been rejected.
(3.) The relevant facts of the present case for the purpose of deciding the controversy are that 12 plaintiffs have filed the original suit no. 829 of 92 (Shiv Narain Sharma and others and others v. Union of India and others) . The aforesaid suit was dismissed in default on 11.8.2010 for want of prosecution and the application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC for restoring on its original number was filed praying for setting aside the order dated 11.8.2010 dismissing the suit for non-prosecution, which was ultimately allowed on 28.4.2012 on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. In the aforesaid order, it was clearly observed that the plaintiffs are indulging in causing delay in disposal of the suit, however, in the interest of justice the application was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- with the conditions that they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment in future.;