RAKESH SACHDEVA Vs. NARESH SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM(M) 1113/2015 The petitioner has impugned the order dated 29.06.2014 whereby the application filed by the respondent seeking amendment to the plaint had been allowed subject to cost of Rs. 5,000.00. After about seventeen months of passing of impugned order and accepting the cost of Rs. 5,000.00 subject to which the application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil P.C. was allowed, this petition has been filed in Nov., 2015.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner Sh. Ashish Upadhayay, Advocate has submitted that irrespective of the fact that whether cost has been accepted or not, the petitioner has a right to impugn the order allowing the amendment as the cost was not conditional but awarded by Ld. Trial Court in its discretion. Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Bijender Nath Srivastava Vs. Mayank Srivastava, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2562 , Radha Govind (Dead) through LRs. and others Vs. Patel Bidi Company and others, 2008 (72) ALR 219 (Allahabad High Court and Shamsher Singh and others Vs. Joginder Singh and Anr. in RA-CR No. 162-CII of 2011 decided on 17th July 2012 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) in support of his contentions.

(3.) In the case reported as Bijender Nath Srivastava's case (Supra) in paras no.19-21 of the report, the Honourable Supreme Court has dealt with the principle of estoppel precluding a party from challenging the order allowing a petition subject to cost which has been accepted by other party and held as under:-