BAWA COTTON GILLING Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grant of an application moved by the plaintiff-bank for additional evidence is what has given rise to the present revision petition.

(2.) The allegation in the application is that resolution of sanction, Exhibit P.1 is already on the record but particulars of the case seeking approval relating to this case which were attached with the said letter could not be produced earlier and the same be permitted to be produced by way of additional evidence. As already noticed, this application was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 300 as costs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the costs imposed for grant of the application have already been accepted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on June 7, 1993, before the filing of the revision, and therefore, this revision is not competent. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on Amar Singh v. Perhlad and Others, 1989 PunLJ 496, wherein it has been clearly held that two options are open to a person who seeks to challenge the order by filing a revision petition, one is to accept the costs and treat the order as correct and the another not to accept the costs and challenge the order. In the present case, the petitioner having elected to accept the costs as is apparent from the copy of the order dated June 7, 1993, will be deemed to have accepted the costs and exercised his choice in accepting the order as correct. This being the position in the present case, it has to be held that the revision has to be dismissed on this ground alone.