JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan, J - This is a civil revision against the order dated 21st January 1939, passed by the Munsif of Dalmau, dismissing the objections of the applicants under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. The facts are as follows: On 20th August 1938, the suit for damages filed by Mt. Vidyawati, opposite party 2, against Lachmi Chand the decree-holder, opposite party 1, was dismissed, and special costs were allowed to the decree-holder. On 13th November 1938, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree for costs. On 9th December 1938, the applicant Mahabal Prasad, who is the mukhtar of Mt. Vidyawati and Mt. Parbhawati, the own sister of Mt. Vidyawati, filed objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. On 21st January 1939, the learned Munsif dismissed the objections with costs, and held that they were not bona fide, and were intended to harass the decree-holder by delaying the execution. He also found that the objections had been unnecessarily delayed and rejected them with costs. Lachmi Chand filed an application on the same day in which he stated that the objectors had filed objections to harass him, that he had attended the Court on several hearings and had brought his witnesses but they had not been produced. He prayed that the cost of witnesses and the pleader's fee be taxed in the case. The learned Munsif thereupon passed the following order: "The amount shall be taxed as costs, as the case has been decided on a preliminary point." The formal order, which was prepared in the case duly incorporated these costs.

2. On 26th January 1939, the applicants filed an application that the diet money of the witnesses (Rs. 28-8-0) who had not been produced, ought not to have been taxed as costs and consequently the formal order should be amended. The learned Munsif rejected this application. The applicants have preferred this revision application against the order, dated 21st January 1939, but have preferred no revision against the order, dated 26th January 1989. In support of the revision application, it has been contended before me that after dismissing the objections on 2lst January 1939, the Court had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to pass a subsequent order allowing costs of the witnesses to be taxed. Reliance was placed on Order 20, Rule 3, Civil P.C., and Rule 97 of chap. 2 of the Oudh Civil Rules. Order 20, Rule 3 says that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by Section 152 or on review.

3. Rule 97 of Chap. 2 of the Oudh Civil Rules lays down that.

in taxing costs the diet money only of such of the witnesses as are actually examined shall be included unless the Court directs the contrary.

4. It has been argued that the Court was competent to give direction as regards the taxation of the costs of diet money only at the time of passing the order, dismissing the objections and that no such direction having been given in the order dismissing the objections the Court could not subsequently pass any order allowing the costs to be taxed. I am of opinion that this contention has no force. There is no doubt whatever that the objections were dismissed with costs in favour of the decree-holder. In the ordinary course therefore the costs incurred by the decree-holder should have been taxed and incorporated in the formal order to be prepared by the office in pursuance of the order of the Court. Rule 97 however forbids that the diet money of witnesses, who have not been examined, should not be taxed unless the Court gives a contrary direction. In the present case I find that the decree-holder moved there and then for the taxation of these costs, and the Court gave a clear direction that the diet money of the witnesses, who were not examined, should also be taxed as costs in the case. Apart however from the application filed by the decree-holder it was also open to the