ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.--This revision petition is filed by the Defendants questioning the order of the trial Court allowing I.A.IX filed by the Plaintiffs. By the order under challenge, the trial Court cancelled the order dated 29.7.1997 in Miscellaneous No. 7 of 1990 and revived the exparte judgment and decree passed in the suit on the ground that costs awarded was not paid within the stipulated time. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that cost deposited by the Defendants had been withdrawn by the Plaintiffs and even the cost of Rs.25/- awarded for not filing written statement had been accepted by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs and that being the position, the trial Court was not justified in allowing the application and revising the exparte judgment and decree by cancelling the order dated 29.7.1997. 3. A perusal of the records reveal that exparte decree was passed in the suit. Defendants filed Miscellaneous No. 7 of 1990 and the same was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- on or before 28.8.1997. On 29.8.1997 an application was filed seeking extension of time to deposit the cost but the said application was not posted immediately. However, on 2.9.1997 the cost was paid and the same was withdrawn by the Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned for filing written statement. Even cost of Rs.25/- awarded for filing written statement was also paid by the Defendants. When the things stood thus, Plaintiffs filed a memo seeking to cancel the order dated 29.7.1997 by which the suit was restored in Miscellaneous No. 7 of 1990. That was followed by an application numbered I.A.IX. The trial Court allowed the application, which gave rise to this revision petition. 4. From what has been narrated above, it is clear that the Plaintiffs having received the cost from the Defendants, have raised hypertechnical grounds to see that Defendants shall not contest the suit. In the decision reported in Konkan Trading Company Vs. Suresh Govind Kamat Tarkar and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1009 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, it is held that the Courts shall not construe the matters technically as it would amount to taking hyper-technical view which denies access to a person from seeking justice. The ratio of the said decision applies in all fours to the instant case. 5. The ratio of the said decision applies in all fours to the instant case. 5. The vehement arguments of learned Counsel for the Respondents justifying the impugned order does not hold water. Admittedly, Plaintiffs obtained exparte decree against the Defendants. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. Rights of the parties have to be adjudicated after assessment of oral and documentary evidence. If really the Plaintiffs entitle for the reliefs prayed for in the suit, they should not hesitate to face the contest. Having received the cost, though belatedly, it is not open to the Plaintiffs to raise the technical pleas like the one raised in this case. Absolutely there is no merit in the stand taken by the Plaintiffs. Hence, the revision petition has to be allowed. 6. The other submission of learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs have not authorised their Advocate to withdraw the amount deposited by the Defendants, cannot be accepted. Such a plea is taken before the trial Court is not tenable in law and therefore the same cannot be accepted by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order under revision is set aside. The trial Court has to proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law.