JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - In spite of service of notice the respondent has not appeared in the present proceeding. 2. The petitioner has filed supplementary-affidavit dated 28.09.2018 on service of notice upon the respondent. 3. The petitioner, who is defendant no.5 in Title Suit No.89 of 2010, is aggrieved of orders dated 11.01.2017, 12.07.2017 and 09.01.2018. 4. Title Suit No.89 of 2010 was instituted by Jamshedpur Transport Welfare Association for a decree for declaration that the Trust created by the defendants by a registered trust-deed dated 19.01.2010 has no concern with the plaintiff-Association and its assets and properties which are described under schedule ''A''. The plaintiff has pleaded that out of its own fund it has purchased a piece of land admeasuring about 0.02.60 hectares with structure and super-structures thereon through a sale-deed dated 04.10.2002 from its owner Shesh Dhar Tiwari. The defendants have also created a trust in the name and style of Jamshedpur Transport Welfare Trust through Trust-deed dated 19.01.2010, however, office of the said Trust has been shown at 1/G, New Development Area, Golmuri, PO & PS-Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, but this property exclusively belongs to the plaintiff-society. The suit was contested by the defendants challenging authority of Ram Prit Singh as Chairman of the Jamshedpur Transport Welfare Association. Various grounds on maintainability of the suit was taken by the defendants. Stand taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff did not have sufficient fund to construct a building or purchase the land and, in fact, the double-storied building with basement was constructed by the Association from finances provided by 21 members of the Association. In the suit, plaintiff''s evidence was closed on 15.06.2016 and by an order dated 13.07.2016 the defendants were directed to file their list of witnesses and adduce their evidence. Thereafter, the suit was posted on six occasions before defendants'' evidence was closed on 11.01.2017. The defendants filed a petition on 07.02.2017 for recall of order dated 11.01.2017 which was finally heard on 12.07.2017. On that day also, no one appeared on behalf of the defendants to press their application dated 07.02.2017 and accordingly the application for recall of order dated 11.01.2017 was rejected. The defendants again filed an application on 31.07.2017 for hearing of their application dated 07.02.2017. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.01.2018. 5. Mr. On that day also, no one appeared on behalf of the defendants to press their application dated 07.02.2017 and accordingly the application for recall of order dated 11.01.2017 was rejected. The defendants again filed an application on 31.07.2017 for hearing of their application dated 07.02.2017. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.01.2018. 5. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the defendants are not granted even one opportunity to examine one of the defendants, it would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. 6. The proceeding in Title Suit No.89 of 2010 would disclose that both parties have committed serious default during the trial of the suit. On 13.07.2016 the defendants were directed to lead their evidence and thereafter the suit was posed on as many as twenty occasions, when finally the application seeking recall of order dated 11.01.2017 was dismissed by the trial Judge. More than sufficient opportunity has been granted to the defendants to lead evidence, however, I am of the opinion that in a suit of this nature in which dispute on ownership of the property is involved, one opportunity to the defendants may be given subject to imposition of cost. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 11.01.2017, 12.07.2017 and 09.01.2018 are set-aside, however, the defendants shall be permitted to examine one amongst themselves within four weeks, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid with the District Legal Service Authority, Jamshedpur before examination of one of the defendants in Title Suit No.89 of 2010. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.