Wanchoo, C. J.—This is a revision by Maniram who was defendant in a suit pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar and has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The suit was filed by Beharidas and issues were framed on the 25th of July, 1951. Thereafter, there were a number of hearings on many of which the plaintiff and witnesses were present, but the evidence could not be recorded for various reasons. Eventually, on the 21st of July, 1952, the plaintiff and his witnesses were not present. His counsel was called, but he stated that he had no instructions. Thereupon, the court closed the case for the plaintiff as he had been given many opportunities to produce his evidence. The court then proceeded to examine the defendant, and thereafter heard arguments of defendants counsel, and dismissed the suit. Then followed an application by the plaintiff for restoration. This application was allowed on the 17th of December, 1952, and the present revision is against that order.

3. The main argument on behalf of the defendant applicant is that the court had decided the suit on merits under O. XVII, r. 3 on the 21st of July, 1952, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to allow the application for restoration and set aside the order dismissing the suit. It was urged that the only remedy open to the plaintiff in the circumstances was to file an appeal, and this Court should, therefore, set aside the order of the Civil Judge restoring the suit,

4. A preliminary objection has, however, been raised on behalf of the plaintiff, opposite party. It is said that the defendant applicant accepted the costs awarded by the court by its order of the 17th December, 1952 as the condition for the restoration of the suit, and therefore it was no longer open to the defendant to maintain the present revision inasmuch as the defendant could not approbate and reprobate the order of the 17th of December, 1922, at the same time.

5. We may in this connection mention what happened after the 17th of December, 1952. The case was fixed for hearing on the 22nd of December, 1952, and on that date the plaintiff was prepared to pay the costs, but the counsel for the defendant stated that a revision would be filed in the High Court, and he was therefore not prepared to accept the costs. It was also prayed that time might be allowed to file a revision. The counsel concerned was Shri Brijlal whose signature appears on the order-sheet of the 22nd of December, 1952. Thereupon, the case was adjourned to the 29th of January, 1953, and the order-sheet of that date says that no revision had been filed, and Rs. 25/- as costs had been paid to defendants counsel, and the suit was restored. This order-sheet is also signed by Shri Brijlal, and it is on the acceptance of the costs on this date that the opposite party bases his preliminary objection It may be added that the revision was filed in this Court on the 2nd of February, 1953.

6. There is authority for the view that if a party accepts the benefit of one part of an order, which consists of various parts dependant on each other, he must be held to have accepted the entire order on the principle that the order being one cannot be approbated and reprobated at the same time.

7. The first case on the point to which we may refer is (Gadde) Venkatarayudu vs. (Anumolu Chinna) Ram Krishnayya (1). The judgment of Venkatasubba Rao J. in that case, if we may say so with respect, is very illuminating and traces the history of the principle behind the rule. It appears that in England the point is settled beyond doubt, and there is a string of authorities in favour of it, of which two may be mentioned here, namely Pearce vs. Choplain (2) and Tinkler vs. Hilder (3). The principle behind the rule is given in these words by Venkatasubba Rao J, at page 270—

"What is the principle underlying these decisions ? When an order shows plainly that it is intended to take effect in its entirety and that several parts of it depend upon each other, a per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document