JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. This civil revision application is directed against an order dated 11.9.1985 passed by 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge. Buxar in Title Suit No. 198 of 1971. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the aforementioned suit. 2. In view of nature of the impugned order it is not necessary to notice the facts of the case. 3. On 16.7.1985 the petitioners filed an application for adjournment and the same was allowed on a condition that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 15/- by way of cost. The next date fixed for the aforementioned suit was 2-8-1985 on which date the petitioners did not deposit the said amount on the ground that a talk of compromise was going on. The next date fixed for the suit was 16.8.1985 on which date another application for adjournment was filed, which was also allowed on the condition that the petitioners deposit a further sum of Rs. 15/- by way of adjournment cost as also a sum of Rs. 15/- which was directed to be deposited by the aforementioned order dated 16.7.1985. The petitioner complied with the order on 22.8.1985 which was the next date fixed. It is however, pertinent to note that a set of defendants withdrew a portion of the cost. However, another set of defendants filed an application before the court below that as the petitioner did not deposit the cost of Rs. 15/- by 2.8.1985 the suit should be dismissed. The learned court below by the impugned order dismissed the said suit. 4. It is well known that the peremptory orders for payment of cost or for deposit of court fee are sometimes passed in terrorem. In such a situation the courts have always the power in terms of sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the date. Reference in this connection may be made to A.I.R 1961 S.C. 882 (Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das’) 5. Further, in this case as by an order dated 16.8.1985 the learned court below directed the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15/- apart from the sum of Rs. 15/- to be deposited by an order dated 16.7.1985. he would be deemed to have extended the date for deposit of the said costs and as such the plaintiffs petitioners were entitled to deposit a sum of Rs. 15/- apart from the sum of Rs. 15/- to be deposited by an order dated 16.7.1985. he would be deemed to have extended the date for deposit of the said costs and as such the plaintiffs petitioners were entitled to deposit a sum of Rs. 30/- by the next date fixed for the suit i.e. 22.8.1985. It is also well known that if a party has withdrawn the cost awarded in his favour he cannot turn round and complain that the peremptory order passed by the court has not been complied with and therefore, necessary consequences thereof should ensue. 6. As seen hereinbefore one set of defendants have already withdrawn the costs deposited by the plaintiff and as such the court had absolutely no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit as against them. If the court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit as against one set of defendants, it logically follows that it had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit in its entirety for non depositing of the costs by the plaintiff. 7. In such a situation the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed and the order dated 11.9.1985 is set aside and the learned court below are hereby directed to hear the suit on merits. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case where will however, be no order as to costs.