JUDGMENT : U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- defendant No. 9 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the part of order dated 5.7.2013, (Ann. P-1) passed by XIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 153-A/13, whereby allowing the application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC an ex-parte order was set aside by imposition of cost of Rs. 4000/- and in this petition only part of order imposition of the cost has been challenged. 2. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record and the averments of the petition alongwith the impugned order argued that initially notice of the suit was not sent to the present petitioner on his correct address. So the same was not served and on that basis the case was proceeded ex-parte against him and on coming to know about such ex-parte order, the petitioner has filed the impugned application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC. In continuation, he said that on consideration such application was allowed but without any fault on the part of the petitioner, contrary to law and in arbitrary manner the cost of Rs. 4000/- has been imposed for setting aside such ex-parte order. He further said that in some earlier suit, he was served on the correct address but the respondents with malafide intention had given the wrong address of the petitioner. So notice of the suit was not duly served on him. With these submissions, he said that the part of the impugned order imposition of cost is not sustainable and prayed to set aside the same by admitting and allowing this petition. 3. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record alongwith the petition. 4. With these submissions, he said that the part of the impugned order imposition of cost is not sustainable and prayed to set aside the same by admitting and allowing this petition. 3. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record alongwith the petition. 4. The arguments advanced by the counsel in support of his case are very attractive but in view of the findings of the trial court given in the impugned order, it is apparent that such order has been passed by such court under its vested discretionary jurisdiction and as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another (In both the Appeals) v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hyderabad, (In both the Appeals), reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 holding that any order passed by the subordinate court under its discretionary jurisdiction, then the same could not be interfered under the revisional jurisdiction, even if such order is wrong or till some extent is illegal, such order could not be interfered. It could be interfered only if some material irregularity and illegality has been committed in the same. Such situation is not found in the impugned order. I would like to mention here that under the provision of Order 9, Rule 7 of CPC the court has discretionary jurisdiction to impose the cost on allowing such application, therefore, such order could not be interfered in the superintending jurisdiction of this court because imposition of cost is purely discretionary matter of the court. So at present this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. However this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner if subject to final judgement and decree of the trial court on arising the occasion such question is raised by the petitioner in duly constituted appeal. The stands dismissed as indicated above. Petition dismissed.