IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 MANJIT KAUR .... Petitioner VERSUS PIARA SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Service of respondent No.3 dispensed with vide order dated 01.05.2023. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.01.2023 (P-10) as well as the order passed on the review application dated 06.02.2023 (P-13), both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garhshankar.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.07.2013. Written statement was filed by the defendant-respondents. During the pendency of the suit, at the stage of defendants’ evidence, an application was filed for permission to amend the written statement by defendant-respondent No.1. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 (P-10), the application was allowed subject to payment of ₹1,500 as costs to be paid by defendant-respondent No.1 to the plaintiff-petitioner. Costs, as imposed vide order dated 24.01.2023, were paid. Thereafter, an application for review of the order dated 24.01.2023 (P-10) was filed on 31.01.2023. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2023 (P-13) the review application was dismissed. Meanwhile on 04.02.2023 an application for correction of the zimni order dated 30.01.2023 wherein it was noticed that the costs had been paid by defendant-respondent No.1 and accepted by the plaintiff-petitioner was also filed. The said application was dismissed vide order dated

17.02.2023. The present revision petition was filed on 15.02.2023.

3. Notice of motion was issued on 21.02.2023 and the Trial Court was directed to adjourn the matter beyond the date fixed by this Court. However, the fact that the costs have been paid and accepted and the fact of filing an application for correction of the zimni order dated 30.01.2023 appears to have not been brought to the notice of this Court. These facts were pointed out by the learned counsel for defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 only on 12.01.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner herein has contended that mere acceptance of costs by the plaintiff-petitioner would not preclude him from assailing the order as allowing of the application subject to costs was not a condition precedent and the same was only imposed on account of the delay in filing the application for amendment. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead)

through LRs Versus Mayank Srivastava [1994 (4) SCC 117].

5. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 would contend that once the costs have been accepted, the plaintiff- petitioner was precluded from challenging the said order. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in M/s Milap Foundry & Engineering Works & Anr. Versus M/s Futuristic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., [2025 NCPHHC 6008], Amar Singh Versus Perhlad & Ors. [1989 (2) PLR 513] and Arti Devi & Ors. Versus Pardeep Kumar & Ors. [2017 (3) Law Herald 2444].

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the application for amendment was filed by the defendant-respondent No.1 which was allowed vide impugned order dated

24.01.2023 (P-10), the operative part of which reads as under :

‘The amendment sought by the defendant pertains to some subsequent compromise during pendency of suit and same could not be pleaded at the time of filing earlier written statement. Perusal of file shows that vide order dated 22.11