BALDEV SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 7. 2. 1998 passed by the Civil judge, Junior Division, Amritsar. Vide this order, the learned trial Court accepted the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking the permission of the Court to deposit the amount of costs, which were awarded in the earlier suit. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) IN this case, the respondent-plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for joint possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the earlier suit, the respondent filed an application seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15. 5. 1990, which reads as under :

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. Mr. Harpawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Konkan Trading Company v. Suresh Govind Kamat Tarkar and Ors. , A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1009, wherein it was held by the S. C. that the costs in a case like the present one can be paid by the plaintiff even during the pendency of the second suit after a direction had been given by the learned trial Court. Since in the present case, the learned trial Court has allowed the respondent-plaintiff to make the payment of the costs at this stage. i am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court docs not call for any interference by this Court in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Konkan Trading Company (supra ).