PUSHKAR LAL Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS defendant filed this writ petition against the order dated 26. 5. 2004 (Annex. 10) by which the application field on behalf of the plaintiff respondents dated 5. 7. 99 was allowed and the application moved on behalf of the petitioners defendant dated 24. 11. 2000 (Annex. 7) was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that this suit is not maintainable on several counts. First of all amendment in the suit, which has been allowed by the Trial Court is after expiry of the limitation. In support of his submissions he referred Art. 56 of the Limitation Act wherein the limitation of 3 years is prescribed. He submits that herein the instant case after decade the suit is amended, therefore, the suit should be dismissed on the point of limitation.

(3.) PER contra learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents Mr. Mahendra Goyal submits that so far as the order passed on Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the Court below, this relief becomes infructuous as the petitioner has accepted the cost and filed the reply to the amendment. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the judgment reported in Amar Singh vs. PERhlad & Ors. (7), wherein Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that on accepting the cost the defendant cannot challenge order notwithstanding that cost was accepted under protest.