SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. THE PANCHAYAT SAMITI, KAITHAL, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICE SECRETARY, DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 10.11.1987, whereby the application for setting aside the ex -parte decree dated 20 -3 -1985 was allowed on payment of Rs. 500/ - as costs.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Respondent that since the Petitioner has accepted the cost of Rs. 500/ -, he is estopped from challenging the impugned order in this petition. In support of his contention, he referred to Pirthvi Singh Azad v. Ajaib Singh Sindhu and Ors. : A.I.R. 1965 P&H. 463, Dr. Sewak Parshad v. Gram Panchayat Raipur Rani 1972 Rev L.R. 319 and Naqubai Ammal and Ors. v. B. Shama Rao and Ors. : A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 593.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent As regards this Court, the matter was settled in Dr. Sewak Parashad v. Gram Panchayat (supra), in which many authorities were cited, including the Supreme Court judgment in Naqubai Ammal v. B Shama Rao's case (supra). In that case, amendment of written statement was allowed on payment of costs. The Plaintiff accepted the cost and, therefore, it held that he was precluded from challenging the order after accepting the cost. In Pirthvi Singh Azad's case (supra), as well it was held that when the Tribunal allowed amendment of election petition on payment of costs and the costs were accepted, the amendment of the petition is no longer open to be challenged by the party in appeal against dismissal of election petition. As regards the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Puttu Singh v. Vidya Ram's case (supra), it does not give any reasons and, therefore, was no precedent. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.