Acceptance of costs under protest implies admission of the order's jurisdiction, influencing the court's decision.

Jackson, J.

1. This petition is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah allowing an amendment of the written statement on condition of defendants paying plaintiff Rs. 150 by way of costs. Defendant paid the money which was taken by plaintiffs vakil,"under protest" as he intended to challenge the order in this Court.

2. Respondent raises a preliminary point whether the plaintiff having taken the money although under protest is not estopped from questioning the order.

3. It has long been recognized that where a party accepts costs under a Judges order which, but for the order, would not at that time be payable, he cannot afterwards object that the order was made without jurisdiction. King v. Simmonds [1881] 7 Q. B. 289 and Tinkler v. Hilder 4 Ex. 187 This ruling was followed in Banku Chandra Bose v. Marium Begum [1917] 21 C. W. N. 232 in circumstances similar to those of the present case. But the petitioner relies upon an obiter dictum in that case of the Chief Justice Personally I cannot help thinking that defendants would have been in a much better position if they had said: "We intend appealing against this order and we only accept this sum under protest.

4. The defendants vakil himself in that case when questioned by the Court said that receipt under protest would have been of no avail, and cited Croft v. Lumley [1858] 6 H. L. C. 672 I think, with all respect to the Chief Justice, that he was right, That ruling is based on the broad principle that what is done, not what is said, is the all-important matter, The petitioner obtained money which he could not otherwise have got, and although he protested he enjoyed that benefit, he must be taken to have admitted that the order was within jurisdiction.

5. In this case there is no question of compulsion which distinguishes it from an otherwise similar case, in Manilal v. Harendra Lal [1910] 12 C. L. J. 556 the money might easily have lain in deposit. Nor do I think that the authorities quoted above are shaken by Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 639 a special case under the Workmens Compensation Act.

6. The petition is dismissed with costs.