RAM KISHAN Vs. HARDAMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 320 and 321 of 1976. The first one is against an order of the trial Court allowing amendment of the plaint in the suit for possession in exercise of the right of pre-emption. In the original plaint, the plaintiff-respondent had stated that he was the vendor's father's brother's son. In the application for amendment he stated that the relationship had inadvertently been described wrongly and that in fact he was vendor's brother's son. That amendment has been allowed by the trial Court. The second petition is against an order of the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, allowing the addition of new defendants.

(2.) Both the orders of the trial Court in favour of the respondent were made conditional on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs. On the last hearing of these petitions, i.e., November 16, 1976, Mr. Liberhan, the learned counsel for the respondent, stated that costs having been accepted by the counsel for the defendant-petitioner these petitions could not be heard on merit as the petitioner is precluded from questioning the correctness of the orders, for which he has accepted costs.

(3.) I have today heard counsel for both sides on the question of the effect of acceptance of costs. Mr. V.K. Bali, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Ramendra Mohan Tagore V. Keshab Chandra Chanda and another, 1934 AIR(Cal) 554 wherein one of the two Judges constituting the Bench has observed in a separate judgment that on the facts of that particular case, the receipt of costs did not operate as an estoppel preventing the defendant from raising the question of the validity of the amendment. He has also referred to the orders of Dhillon and S.P. Goyal JJ. dated April 22, 1976, in Mahant Budh Dass etc. V. S.G.P.C., Amritsar, F.A.O. No. 52 of 1966, wherein different views are stated to have been taken by the learned Judges on this question in consequence of which (and also on account of difference of opinion on merits of the issues involved in the case) the learned Judges have recommended that the case be referred to a larger Bench.