ORDER: The plaintiffs in O.S. No.45 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi are the petitioners in the above revision filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and injunction, declaring that the defendant are bound by the oral partition made in January, 1973 and subsequently by document dated 9.9.1973 evidencing the oral partition executed by all the four branches of the family of Bethasami. 3. It is to be noted that as on the date of filing of the suit there were 18 defendants (now the strength is increased to 29). 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is seen that since the above suit has been now pending from 30.4.1991, this Court in C.M.A. No.430 of 1992 directed the Court below to dispose of the suit one way or the other by the end of December, 1999. Because, of the said direction the suit came to be posted for enquiry on 1.12.1999. At the request of the parties the same was adjourned to 3.12.1999, 6.12.1999 and then adjourned to 8.12.1999. In the meanwhile, because of the order of amendment made at the instance of one of the parties and after carrying out the amendment the suit was posted on 17.7.2000. It is further seen that notice was issued to the newly impleaded defendants namely, defendants 24, 29, and 30. It is also seen that since no one represented for the defendants 5 to 28 in spite of service of notice by way of publication, they were set ex parte. Again the suit was posted to 25.9.2000, 29.9.2000 and finally on 13.10.2000. Once again the suit was adjourned to 18.10.2000 and on that date one of the plaintiffs made a statement before the Court that he is not feeling well and unable to continue the suit. He also made an endorsement to that effect in the sit docket. 6. Learned Subordinate Judge considering the positive direction by this Court for the disposal of the suit and in the light of the fact that the parties, particularly, the plaintiffs are not cooperating with the Court, having no other option, dismissed the suit for default on 18.10.2000. In the same order the learned Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.10,000 for each of the defendants. In the same order the learned Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.10,000 for each of the defendants. Questioning the said order, the petitioners/ plaintiffs have preferred the above revision. 7. It is brought to my notice that against the said orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, the petitioners have also preferred appeal namely, A.S. No.160 of 2000 before the District Court, Villupuram and the same is pending as on date. 8. After going through all the details that lead to the passing of the impugned order, I am of the view that the act of the petitioners is not appreciable. The petitioners/ plaintiffs are bound to get along with the suit, when the same is ready for trial. However, the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in directing the plaintiffs to pay a cost of Rs.10,000 to each of the defendants. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.35-A of Civil Procedure Code, which reads as follows: “(2) No Court shall make any such order for the payment of an amount exceeding (three thousand rupees) or exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less: Provided that where the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of any Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes Under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (or under a corresponding law in force in (any part of India to which the said Act does not extend) and not being a Court constituted under (such Act or law), are less than two hundred and fifty rupees, the High Court may empower such Court to award as costs under this Section any amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees and not exceeding those limits by more than one hundred rupees. Provided, further, that the High Court may limit the amount which any Court or class of Courts is empowered to award as costs under this Section.” 9. In the light of the said provision, I hold that the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an error in imposing cost as stated above, which is contrary to Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.35-A of C.P.C. No doubt, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court is entitled to impose reasonable costs and the same should not exceed Rs.3,000 or exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less. Accordingly, the cost ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge namely Rs.10,000 for each defendant is liable to be set aside. 10. Though the conduct of the petitioners/ plaintiffs is not appreciable in prolonging the matter, in order to purchase peace, decide the issue one way or the other and also taking note of the number of defendants contesting the matter, I am not inclined to impose any amount towards costs. 11. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi dated 16.11.2000 made in Unnumbered I.A. of 2000 in O.S. No.45 of 1996 is set aside and the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to restore the said suit on its file. Considering the fact that the plaintiffs are to be given one more opportunity to pursue the suit, they are directed to cooperate with the Court below. Learned Subordinate Judge is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 30th April, 2003 and sent a compliance report to this Court. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps. are closed. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has given an undertaking that they will not press the appeal A.S. No.160 of 2000 pending before the District Court, Villupuram. The above statement is recorded.