Defendant challenged a trial court order allowing amendment of the plaint. Having already accepted the Rs.10,000 costs imposed as a condition of amendment, the defendant could not approbate and reprobate; following Amar Singh, the revision petition was held not maintainable and dismissed.
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.
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-2804-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.12.2024
Pritpal Singh ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
M/s Futuristic Solutions Private Limited ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.13 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
CR-2804-2023
-2-
adjourned for filing of an amended plaint. The learned counsel has further contended that in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Perhlad & Ors. [1989 (2) PLR 513] , the present revision petition itself would not be maintainable.
“5. In the present case, the petitioner having accepted costs awarded in the order while allowing amendment of the plaint further mentioned that he was accepting the amount under protest. This was a unilateral act on the part of the petitioner. Even if he had not accepted the costs, the same would have been deposited in the Court by the plaintiff. If the petitioner had withdrawn the costs from the Court unilaterally stating that the withdrawal would be under protest, he could not approbate and
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.13 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
CR-2804-2023
-3-
reprobate, that is accepting benefit of the order and at the same time objecting to the passing of the order. He had to accept the order as a whole. What he did was that he accepted the costs and thereby acquiesced in the correctness of the order passed. Although at the time of acceptance of the costs the petitioner stated that he was doing so under protest, that will not make any different as the opposite party had not consented to the statement of the petitioner in this respect. If in fact the petitioner wanted to challenge the order of amendment of the plaint, there was no compulsion for him to accept the costs. The cots would have remained deposited in the Court. The right of the petitioner to the costs imposed by the Court on the plaintiff while allowing amendment of the plaint was not based on any right of the petitioner in the suit. The costs were ordered by the Court to compensate the petitioner for the inconvenience caused during the pendency of the suit till the plaint was amended. Such an order regarding costs was made on term or condition for amendment of the plaint in view of Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. Such an order could not be accepted in part by either of the party while denouncing the other part. The plaintiff could not file amended plaint stating that he could pay costs at the time
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.13 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
CR-2804-2023
-4-
of final decision of the suit. Likewise the defendant could not say while accepting the costs that he would challenge the order in appeal or revision or that he would return the costs withdrawn if the order of amendment of plaint is set aside. The crux of the matter to be seen is as to what the petitioner did and not what he said. By acceptance of costs, he accepted the order as correct. He has taken benefit of the order. He cannot now turn around and say he will also challenge the order. By allowing him to challenge the order would amount to nullifying the effect of acceptance of costs. In such circumstances, he cannot approbate and reprobate. His own act would estop him. At the most it can be said that the petitioner had two options, one to accept the costs and to treat the order as correct, the other not to accept the costs, he exercised his choice in accepting the order as correct. His lodging the protest in such circumstances in meaningless. Reference here may be made to the decision of Madras High Court in R. Samudra Vijyam Chettiar v. Srinivasa Alwar, AIR 1956 Madras 301 laying down the following principle :-
"Where a man is entitled to one of two inconsistent rights and he has with full knowledge done an unequivocal act indicating his choice of the one he
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.13 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
CR-2804-2023
-5-
cannot afterwards pursue the other which after the first choice is by reason of the inconsistency no longer open to him. Such cases do not require detriment to the other party as foundation for their application."
Similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in K. Shanmugham Pillai v. S. Shaimigham Pillai, AIR 1968 Madras 207. The view expressed by the Madras High Court in Ramaswami Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar's case appears to be correct. The said High Court reiterated the view subsequently in H.G. Krishna Reddy v. M.M. Thimmiah's case. The view expressed in Randhir Singh v. Kamlesh's case, thus, cannot be accepted.”
12.12.2024 Yogesh Sharma
( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
Yogesh Sharma 2024.12.13 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition challenging an order allowing amendment of plaint is maintainable after the petitioner has accepted the costs imposed under that order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amar Singh vs. Perhlad & Ors.Followed¶6
[1989 (2) PLR 513]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pritpal Singh
M/s Futuristic Solutions Private Limited
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
