ORDER : 1. Heard Sri.Aditya Bhat, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Ganapathi Subbaraya Bhat, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri J.Prakash, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 and Sri.J.R.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent No.10. Respondent No.9 is served and unrepresented. 2. Present revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division and CJM, Chikkaballapur in Miscellaneous Appeal No.28/2017, dismissing the Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 Sri.Doddamuniyappa filed a suit in O.S.No.971/1993 for the relief of specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell against Smt.Narayanamma, who was the vendor. Suit came to be decreed. 3.2 Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Sri.C.Venkateshappa, who was impleaded as a necessary party in the execution proceedings filed an appeal in R.A.No.45/2005 on the strength of the sale deed executed by Smt.Narayanamma in his favour. Said appeal on contest came to be dismissed. 3.3 Matter was carried before this Court in the second appeal in R.S.A.No.620/2009 and this Court by considered order allowed the said appeal with a direction and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity for the subsequent purchaser Sri.C.Venkateshappa, respondent No.10 in this revision petition. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the said order of the High Court passed in the second appeal, a review petition came to be filed. Review petition also came to be dismissed and thereafter revision petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.10913/2011. It is in dispute, but grounds of appeal by review petitioner is referred by trial Judge. On record it is found that said special leave petition also came to be rejected and the remittance of the proceedings to the trial Court to provide an opportunity for the respondent No.10 in this revision petition became final. 4. Sri.C.Venkateshappa was thus impleaded as a party in O.S.No.971 of 1993 and the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff. 5. At that juncture, first plaintiff- Doddamuniyappa stopped showing interest to prosecute the suit further. Second plaintiff having died, the revision petitioners being the legal representatives of the second plaintiff, were brought on record as in the place of second plaintiff. 6. 5. At that juncture, first plaintiff- Doddamuniyappa stopped showing interest to prosecute the suit further. Second plaintiff having died, the revision petitioners being the legal representatives of the second plaintiff, were brought on record as in the place of second plaintiff. 6. Since there was no proper prosecution of the suit, suit in O.S.No.971/1993 came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. Said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.29164/2012 and this Court in the said writ petition, noted that for the fault of the first plaintiff, the entire suit ought not to have been rejected and directed that the second plaintiff to continue the suit. 7. Thereafter an application came to be filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit and suit to be decided on merits. Said application came to be dismissed and an appeal came to be filed against the dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC in M.A.No.28/2017. 8. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records dismissed the appeal interalia holding in paragraph No.13 as under: "13. The learned counsel for plaintiff Sri.N.V.S. himself submitted before the court that, the suit may be dismissed as his clients are not approaching him to give instructions. When a counsel on record makes any submission before the court and if it is a part of an order sheet, it is the bounden duty of the advocate to sign the order sheet to confirm his submission. The conduct of the counsel binds his client. The order sheet dated 29.10.2004 shows that, the advocate who represented Sri.N.V.S refuse to sign the order sheet. If at all, the allegations made in the appeal against the counsel were be to be true and if the appellants were so interested to proceed with the suit before the trial court, they could have made attempt to summon the concerned advocate in Mis.No.21/2014 to prove that they have not committed any mistake and they were regularly attending their advocate office and they have given proper instructions and despite of which their advocate misguided them by giving wrong hearing dates. This conduct of appellants clearly shows that for want of instructions from his clients, the counsel for plaintiff No.2 made such submission before the trial court and knowing fully about all these facts, the appellants engaged Sri.A.M.C advocate in Mis.No.21/2014 and when Mis.No.21/2014 came to be dismissed they again engaged the present advocate on record Sri.S.L.K as their advocate. This conduct of appellants categorically goes to show that, once any adverse order is passed against the appellants, they are in a habit of changing the advocates and makes unwanted allegation against the counsel who appeared for them and in my opinion, such litigants should be penalized by the courts by imposing exemplary cost so as to avoid multiplicity of litigations and also to create an awareness in the litigants as to the consequences to be faced if the precious time of the court is taken for granted. In my opinion, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial court and the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the 2 nd plaintiff and also Mis.No.21/2014. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are not at all applicable to the case in hand as the facts and circumstances defers. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in negative." 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed on the following grounds. 10. Sri.Bhat learned counsel for the revision petitioners with vehemence contended that for the fault of the advocate of the parties, parties cannot be permitted to suffer and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, contesting respondent No.10 represented by Sri.Jagadish, learned counsel would contend that in the Court below the revision petitioners are prosecuting the suit based on a photocopy of a agreement to sell and respondent No.10 being the bonafide purchaser for value, cannot be permitted to suffer for all time to come in an unwanted litigation and in the event this Court is considering the case of the petitioners, opportunity be provided on payment of exemplary costs. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 would submit that suitable orders be passed. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, having heard the arguments of counsels for parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 would submit that suitable orders be passed. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, having heard the arguments of counsels for parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, the conduct of the advocates who represented the plaintiffs in the Court below is very much visible on the face of record as is culled out supra. Advocate for the party refused even to sign the order sheet. 15. In utter disobedience to the directions of this Court in R.S.A.No.620/2009, the amendment was not carried out and the learned trial Judge directed the office to carry out amendment. Thus, conduct of the revision petitioners do not warrant any discretion from this Court in entertaining the request. 16. Nevertheless, when the rights of the immovable property are involved only on the ground of technicality, suit cannot be dismissed owing to the conduct of the advocates who represented the petitioners before the Court below. It is well settled that for the mistake of an advocate, interest of the parties should not be allowed to suffer in perpetuity. 17. Even where gross negligence is found on record on the part of the advocate of a party, the Court must consider the interest of the party behind the advocate and then protect such interest. No doubt in such circumstances the erring party should be penalised to compensate the hardship caused to his adversary including exemplary costs. 18. In the case on hand, since an agreement to sell is sought to be enforced by the plaintiffs against the defendants and in the meantime it is the defendant No.10, who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property who is put to unnecessary hardship, this Court is of the considered opinion, that granting one more opportunity for the petitioners to prosecute the suit in accordance with law on payment of cost of Rs.75,000/- payable by the petitioners to respondent No.10 would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed. Accordingly following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in M.A.No.28/2017 and order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned trial judge in Miscellaneous No.21/2014 are hereby set aside and suit in O.S.No.971/1993 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, is ordered to be restored on payment of cost of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) payable by the petitioners to respondent No.10 on or before 10.12.2025. (iii) Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 15.12.2025 without further notice. (iv) Payment of cost is condition precedent for restoration of the suit and further participation thereafter. (v) Taking note of the fact that the suit is of the year 1993, learned trial Judge shall expedite the suit and conclude the same as early as possible providing suitable opportunities for the parties but not later than 30.06.2026.