passed on 27-10-2005. On 14-11-2005, memo was filed by the plaintiff into the Court stating that the other side has refused to receive the costs. It cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay in payment of the costs or filing of the memo. On 28-11-2005, plaintiff filed petition under Section 151 CPC, which was numbered as I.A.No.188 of 2005 i.e., just one month after the date of the order in I.A.No.273 of 2005, seeking permission to deposit the costs into the Court. The refusal by the other side to receive the costs was intimated to the Court on 14-112005 itself. Within two weeks thereafter, plaintiff sought permission of the Court to deposit the costs into the Court. Again, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay in filing the said application. The trial Court, however, refused to grant permission on the ground that there was delay in payment of costs and further that the request for permission is not supported by any affidavit. When the Court felt that the petition was not filed in proper manner, duly supported by an affidavit, the trial Court ought to have returned the memo, but on the other hand the trial Court chose to receive the same and register the same as I.A.No.273 of 2005 and also passed orders thereon. Of course, plaintiff ought to have filed a regular application, duly supported by an affidavit, seeking permission of the Court to deposit the costs into the Court, but having received the memo and registered the same as
