JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, purporting to confirm an order of the Civil Judge allowing an amendment of the plaint.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this revision application are these. The defendant took 4 properties on lease on 1-1-66 from a joint Hindu family consisting of 3 brothers Ramkumar, Durgadutt and Magraj of whom Ramkumar was the Karta. Ramkumar filed the present suit as Karta for ejectment on 6-3-67 on the ground of personal necessity of himself and other members of the joint family. During the pendency of this suit a partition took place amongst the brothers as a result of which two of the properties in suit fell to the share of Durga Dutt and the other two fell to the share of Magraj. Durga Dutt and Magraj therefore applied for permission to continue the suit after suitable amendment of the plaint. This application was opposed by the defendant but was allowed by the trial court on 20-2-68.

3. The order of the trial court is written on the order-sheet. In the order it is mentioned that the application was being allowed on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs and that the costs were paid. In the margin the learned counsel for the defendant made the following endorsement :

"Received Rs. 10/- subject to objection."

On behalf of the defendant-applicant it was contended that the above endorsement was made by the learned counsel for the defendant before the order had been written on the order-sheet. No such mention has been made in the memo of revision. A perusal of the order-sheet goes to show that the above endorsement was made to wards the end of the order sheet. The order-sheet covers more than 2 pages. The counsel for the defendant could not have known where the order-sheet would end and if he had made the above endorsement before the order-sheet was written then it would have appeared on the first page of the order-sheet and not on the third page towards the end of it. It is therefore clear that the order-sheet was written first and the endorsement was made by the counsel for the defendant after it had been written.

4. This matter is of importance in this case, as the appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the benefit under the order having been accepted by the defendant he could not challenge it. The learned District Judge relied on Maniram vs. Beharidas (1). On behalf of the defendant it was contended before him that the costs were accepted subject to objection and hence it was open to him to challenge the order in revision. This contention was overruled.

5. On behalf of the defendant it is contended that the decision of the appellate court is erroneous. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and am satisfied that it is no longer open to the defendant to challenge the order of the trial court.

6. In Shriram Sardarmal vs. Gourishankar(2) it was held that if the costs were accepted under protest and the right to challenge the order was reserved at the time of accepting the costs, it would be open to challenge the order notwithstanding that the costs ordered at the time were accepted.

7. In the above case the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkatarayudu vs. Rama Krishnayya (3) was followed. That decision may be taken to be a leading case on the point. Venkatasubba Rao J. observed in this case as follows :

"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 person cannot adopt one part and repudiate another. For instance, if the Court directs that the suit shall be restored on the plaintiff paying the costs of the opposing party, there is no intention to benefit the latter, except on the terms mentioned in the order itself. If the party receives the costs, his act is tantamount to adopting the order............it is clear that if a party rece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document