JUDGMENT : Narayan Shukla, J. Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior advocate assisted by learned Mohd. Adil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mr. Shivnath Tilheri, learned advocate as well as Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by opposite party no. 1, i.e., Additional District Judge, Court no. 8, Lucknow in Misc. Case no. 11C//2008, whereby he has allowed the application of opposite party no. 2 for restoration of Original Miscellaneous Case No. 100/2004 setting aside the order dated 13th October, 2006. 3. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate submitted that opposite party no. 2 moved an application for restoration of the aforesaid miscellaneous case on the ground that he never received any notice/summons in regard to the said case. He got the knowledge about the order dated 13.10.2006 only in the last week of the month of April of 2008 when some villagers came to the opposite party no.2 and told that the petitioner is trying to dispossess the tenants of trust and to dispose of trust property by saying that his name has been mutated as per the order of District Judge, Lucknow, whereas there is a report of process-server, Mr. Dinesh Kumar that he received notice and made signature at another copy of notice in Hindi. The report indicates the receiving and signature of opposite party no. 2 in Hindi but deliberately, he made signature in English on affidavit filed in support of application for restoration. The learned judge has not appreciated this fact and without considering the circumstances allowed the application for restoration of the case in the interest of justice by means of order dated 13th October, 2006, which is an ex parte order. 4. Upon perusal of the order impugned, I find that definitely the court below has not considered the aspect of service of notice and without giving finding on this point, he has set aside the order but it is not in dispute that the order is an ex parte order. 5. Without entering into the question of service of notice as well as without considering the circumstances whatever circumstances have been for not appearing of opposite party no. 5. Without entering into the question of service of notice as well as without considering the circumstances whatever circumstances have been for not appearing of opposite party no. 2 in the proceedings keeping in view the interest of trust, I am of the view that the matter requires adjudication upon merit after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the ex parte order was passed on 13th October, 2006 and opposite party no. 2 has moved the application for restoration in 2008 and again under this order, he is being compelled to get decided the case on merit, I am of the view that he is entitled for compensation from opposite party no. 2. 6. On the point of imposition of cost in a matter governed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of pleadings the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others [ (2009) 10 SCC 84 ] has provided the following parameters to be taken into consideration: "1. At what stage the amendment was sought. 2. While imposing the costs, it should be taken into consideration whether the amendment has been sought at a pre-trial or post-trial stage. 3. The financial benefit derived by one party at the cost of other party should be properly calculated in terms of money and the costs be awarded accordingly. 4. The imposition of costs should not be symbolic but realistic. 5. The delay and inconvenience caused to the opposite side must be clearly evaluated in terms of additional and extra court hearings compelling the opposite party to bear the extra costs. 6. In case of appeal to higher courts, the victim of the amendment is compelled to bear considerable additional costs. All these aspects must be carefully taken into consideration while awarding the costs." 7. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factors, without interfering in the order impugned I hereby permit the opposite party no. 2 to participate in the proceedings of case by imposing Rs. 20,000/- as costs upon him, which shall be paid to the petitioner. It is further provided that opposite party no. 2 shall submit his stand before the court below within fifteen days and he shall not take adjournments unnecessarily without any cogent reasons. Since opposite party no. 2 to participate in the proceedings of case by imposing Rs. 20,000/- as costs upon him, which shall be paid to the petitioner. It is further provided that opposite party no. 2 shall submit his stand before the court below within fifteen days and he shall not take adjournments unnecessarily without any cogent reasons. Since opposite party no. 2 was restrained from transferring the trust properties by means of interim order dated 13.10.2006. I hereby provide that the order passed by the court below on 13th October, 2006 shall remain operative till the disposal of the case. 8. The writ petition is disposed of finally.