MUSHTAQ AHMAD Vs. VIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10-9-99 whereby an amount of Rs. 200 was awarded as cost against the petitioner while allowing amendment application by the authority below and by order dated 2-5-2000 whereby revision filed by petitioner was dismissed and an amount of Rs. 500\vas awarded as cost. The above orders are under challenge only to the extent cost is awarded by them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a poor person and was not in a position to pay the amount of cost.

(2.) AWARDING of cost was discretionary for the authority below. Cost was awarded by the trial Court as the application for the amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner was allowed. While al lowing the application under Order VI, Rule 17, the Court has got jurisdiction/dis cretion to award cost. Since petitioner himself challenged the validity of the order passed by the trial Court to the ex tent cost was awarded by which the Revisional Court rightly dismissed the revision and rightly awarded the cost against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. No case for inter ference under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India is made out. It is, however, observed that in case the facts regarding poverty of the petitioner are actually cor rect, the respondent No. 3 who is alleged to be a Raja shall do justice with him when the amount of cost is offered to the said respondent or to his Counsel alongwith the certified copy of this order.