ORDER : Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. The instant petition is directed against judgment dated 12.5.2015 passed by Addl. District Judge No.4, Ajmer, in CMA No.46/2014(36/14) reversing the judgment dated 15.2.2014 of Civil Judge (JD), Ajmer, in Civil Suit No.46/2013, whereby application of the respondent under Order 9, Rule 9 , CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2007, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 21.05.2007 executed by defendant-petitioner no.2 in favour of defendant-petitioner no.1 in respect of agriculture land bearing khasra No.700 measuring 9 biswas (Barani second) and khasra No.701 measuring 8 biswas (Barani second), in all 17 biswas, is null and void and in-effective against the rights of the plaintiff-respondent, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to cause any interference in the use and occupation of the said land. The plaintiff stated that on 21.05.2007, the defendant no.2 on the basis of a will dated 11.02.1992 executed a registered sale deed dated 21.05.2007 in favour of defendant petitioner no.1, while the plaintiff-respondent, who is daughter, heir and legal representative of deceased Mewa son of Shri Doola, by caste Rawat, is vested with all the rights of ownership and in possession of the said land. 3. On 31.10.2007, the defendant-petitioners filed their written statement and denied the contents of plaint and concocted that the suit was liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff also filed temporary injunction application, which was not contested by the defendants and on 25.07.2009, the learned trial court allowed the temporary injunction application in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues on 24.04.2009 and the suit proceeded with the evidence of the plaintiff, which was completed on 29.03.2011 and the matter was fixed for the evidence of the defendants for the next date, which was adjourned to 19.04.2011, 29.04.2011, 07.05.2011 and 21.05.2011, when the Presiding officer was on leave, and the plaintiff, who was present in person noted in the order sheet that she does not want to prosecute the suit and signed it. However, the case was postponed for the next date 22.07.2011. However, the case was postponed for the next date 22.07.2011. The parties to the suit on that date tried to make settlement in the matter, therefore, the same was referred to Lok Adalat on 30.07.2011, but on 17.09.2011, the case was again fixed for the evidence of the defendants for the next dates 09.11.2011, 11.11.2011, 28.12.2011, 01.02.2012, 29.02.2012 and 29.03.2012, but on the said dates, neither the plaintiff, nor her counsel were present and the suit was again called on for hearing at 4.19 PM and in absence of plaintiff and her counsel, the suit was dismissed in default. 5. On 18.03.2013, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC with the averments that on 21.05.2011, she was called on by her counsel representing in the trial court on telephonic message to sign the proceedings of the court, otherwise she would be subjected to fine, therefore, she signed the order sheet on 21.05.2011, but never gave in writing that she would not like to prosecute the suit and thereafter as has been submitted herein above, the suit was dismissed for default and on the information made by Sumer Singh Rajawat to whom the disputed land had already been sold vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.2010 by the plaintiff and on his information received, applied for certified copy of the proceedings on 14.03.2013, which could be received on 15.03.2013 and then she gathered knowledge of the proceedings of the dismissal of the suit and, therefore, from the said date, the present application was filed on 18.03.2013 for setting aside the order of dismissal and to restore the suit at its original number. The aforesaid application was contested orally by the petitioners. Be that as it may, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ajmer District vide order dated 15.02.2014 rejected the application of the plaintiff-respondent. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal, which came up for before Additional District Judge No.4, Ajmer, who vide the judgment dated 12.5.2015 allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent, set aside the order of Trial Court and restored the suit to its original number for deciding afresh on cost of Rs. 5,000/- hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset brought to the notice of the court that in the impugned order itself wherein it is mentioned that on the payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset brought to the notice of the court that in the impugned order itself wherein it is mentioned that on the payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- the matter would be restored to its original number and to be decided afresh and contended that on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court on 15.7.2015 cost of Rs. 5,000/- was paid which was received by the learned counsel for petitioner Mr. S.N. Hawa, and since the matter has already been restored to be decided afresh, the present petition does not survive and also relied upon the judgment in Mani Ram v. Beharidas AIR 1955 Raj 145 . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that merely because cost of Rs.5,000/- was directed, does not mean that it is not required to be considered and contended that the matter itself has been decided on merits and after decision on merits, any order about cost is not relevant or it is additional. In the alternative he contended that the respondent has no say in the petition and no right is conferred on her to continue the suit because as far as the plaintiff respondent is concerned, she has already sold the property in question and even otherwise the suit itself is required to be dismissed, and alternatively contended that if at all the court is of the opinion that the order is not required to be interfered with, then let the Trial Court may decide rights of the plaintiff respondent and then may proceed ahead in disposal of the suit. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in my considered opinion the present petition is not required to be interfered with. 9. On perusal of the order dated 12.5.2015, the Appellate Court was satisfied that there was some reasonable cause and after agreeing for payment of cost the appeal was allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- and if the said amount was paid, then the petition was required to be restored to its original number to be decided afresh on merits. It is also admitted fact and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that amount of Rs.5,000/- which was the cost imposed by the Appellate Authority, has been received by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. It is also admitted fact and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that amount of Rs.5,000/- which was the cost imposed by the Appellate Authority, has been received by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.N. Hawa on behalf of the petitioner. Once cost has been imposed and accepted then the instant petition ought not to have been filed and has no merit. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the petition does not survive and is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court in its own wisdom may, if deemed proper, decide rights of the plaintiff respondent and then may proceed ahead in disposal of the suit in accordance with law.