SANKARA WARRIER Vs. RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this revision had filed a suit O. S. 210/56 on the file of the District Munsiff, Trichur for setting aside an order of maintenance passed against him under S. 488 of the Code of Criminal procedure. THE suit was decreed and the matter was taken on appeal in a. S. 151/58 before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Trichur. After the appeal was partly heard the respondent filed a petition for permission to produce additional evidence and the learned judge passed a one line order "granted". Aggrieved with the order the respondent in the appeal has come up in revision.

(2.) A preliminary objection is raised that the revision petition will not lie as the costs ordered by the court when the petition was allowed had already been received by the advocate for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order that was passed by the learned judge was not a conditional order, that the payment of costs had not been made a part of the order granting the prayer for examining additional witnesses and so even if his client had received costs that would not preclude him from filing this revision petition.

(3.) THE same view was taken in the case Nalinakha Sinha v. Ram Taran Pal (AIR. 1927 Cal. 733) where it is observed: "if an interlocutory order is made in favour of one party but for some reason costs are allowed unconditionally to the unsuccessful party, the unsuccessful party is not precluded from questioning the order on appeal by accepting the costs of the hearing".