This revision petition challenging an appellate decree setting aside an ex parte order was dismissed as not maintainable because the petitioners had accepted the imposed costs without protest, barring further litigation on the matter.
Revision petition dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C. R. No. 2728 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 2728 of 2009
Date of Decision : January 11, 2010
Sandeep and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
Surender and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is revision petition by some of the plaintiffs assailing judgment dated 07.03.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar.
Some of the defendants moved application for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 01.05.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. The said application was dismissed by learned trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide order dated 26.11.2008. However, appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by the Appellate Court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide impugned judgment (Annexure P-3) dated
C. R. No. 2728 of 2009
2
07.03.2009 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.05.1997 have been set aside on payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved, some of the plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that the plaintiffs have accepted the cost amount of Rs.2,000/pursuant to impugned judgment dated 07.03.2009 without any protest, and therefore, the petitioners are debarred from challenging the impugned judgment. There is considerable merit in the contention. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of the aforesaid contention, has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Khanna vs. International Society for Krishna Consciousness reported as Vol. CXXVII – (2001-1) P. L. R. 704 and on various judgments of Single Benches of this Court namely Sushil Kumar vs. The Panchayat Samiti, Kaithal reported as 1989 P. L. J. 451, an unreported judgment dated 15.07.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 4286 of 2007 and also a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Perhlad and others reported as 1989 P. L. J. 496. The ratio of all these judgments is that if cost amount is accepted, the party accepting the cost amount is debarred from challenging the order. Even if cost amount is accepted under protest, even then the order cannot be challenged by the party accepting the cost. In the instant case, the cost amount was accepted unconditionally and therefore, the petitioners are debarred from challenging the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had engaged counsel for filing the instant revision petition on 22.03.2009, but thereafter counsel for the petitioners in the Lower Court
C. R. No. 2728 of 2009
3
accepted the cost amount without authority. The contention cannot be accepted because counsel for the petitioners in the Lower Court continued to be counsel for the petitioners and his authority had not been withdrawn by the petitioners. Consequently, acceptance of the cost amount by the said counsel cannot be said to be without authority.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is not maintainable because the petitioners have accepted the cost amount awarded under the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
January 11, 2010
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
monika
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision petition is maintainable when the party has accepted the cost amount awarded in the impugned judgment.
Whether acceptance of court fees by counsel is binding on the party when the counsel remains the same.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishan Kumar Khanna vs. International Society for Krishna ConsciousnessRelied on¶22
Krishan Kumar Khanna vs. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Vol. CXXVII – (2001-1) P. L. R. 704
Sushil Kumar vs. The Panchayat Samiti, KaithalRelied on¶22
Sushil Kumar vs. The Panchayat Samiti, Kaithal, 1989 P. L. J. 451
Unreported judgment dated 15.07.2008Relied on¶22
Civil Revision No. 4286 of 2007
Amar Singh vs. Perhlad and othersRelied on¶22
Amar Singh vs. Perhlad and others, 1989 P. L. J. 496
Sandeep and others
Surender and others
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
