The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to pay costs as ordered does not necessarily justify the refusal to permit an amended plaint on record, especially after repeated adjournments and when the issue of non-payment has not been argued.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) is directed against the order dated 27.8.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, declining the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner seeking permission to permit her to place on record the amended plaint which was allowed to be amended on 18.8.2000 subject to payment of Rs. 200/-. The principal ground for refusing permission to place on record the amended plaint mentioned by the Civil Judge is that the plaintiff-petitioner failed to pay the costs of Rs. 200/- on the adjourned date i.e., 30.8.2000 despite the fact that the cost was demanded by the defendant-respondent.

2. Brief facts of this case which led to the filing of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 240 of 13.9.99 for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendant are in exclusive use and occupation of half share of House No. 640, Sector 16-B, Chandigarh. The basis of the claim is that both of them have succeeded in equal shares on the death of their father as per family settlement have also been specified in the family settlement dated 24.5.1994. The plaintiff-petitioner has also asked for the account of the rental income of specified portion of the building as the same has been used by the defendant-respondent exclusively. A further prayer for mandatory perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in the use and occupation by the plaintiff-petitioner. That the area of accommodation which has fallen to her share according to the terms of partition/family settlement dated 24.5.1994 because the terms of family settlement has been acted upon. During the pendency of the suit and before framing of issues an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint. On 18.8.2000 the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 200/- and the case was adjourned to 30.8.2000. On 30.8.2000, the learned Civil Judge passed the following order :-

"Present : As before.

Costs not paid, even on demand. At the request case is adjourned to 28.9.2000 for consideration on the stay application. Amended reply and written statement has been filed."

3. The case was taken up on 28.9.2000 when the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner offered to make the payment of costs of Rs. 200/- and the order dated 28.9.200 reads as under :-

"Present :- Sh. Kasturi Lal, Adv. counsel for the petitioner.

Sh. K.S. Ahluwalia, for respondents.

Written statement to the original petition filed today. Reply to the application U/O 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. had already been filed. At this learned counsel for the petitioner has offered the payment of costs for filing amended petition but the same has not been accepted by counsel for the respondent. Both the counsels want time to address arguments on the point whether amended petition subject to cost on the next date of hearing can be allowed or not and case is adjourned to 17.10.2000."

4. On 17.10.2000 and therafter, the case seems to have been adjourned on various dates and on 27.8.2001, the impugned order has been passed declining the request of the plaintiff-petitioner for placing on record the amended plaint on the ground that cost of Rs. 200/- was never paid. The operative part of the order reads as under :-

"Perusal of the order dated 18.8.2000 shows that the amendment of pliant was allowed subject to payment of costs Rs. 200/- and the case was adjourned to 30.8.2000. On 30.8.2000, the cost was demanded by the counsel for the defendant but it was not paid in spite of asking, as such case was adjourned after taking on file the written statement to the amended plaint. Although written statement to the amended plaint has been placed on record, however, simply by placing on record the documents, the same does