JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, allowing the application for amendment of the plaint in first appeal. The amendment sought for was that plaintiff wanted to correct the description of the property according to the Site plan dated 6th of October, 1991, prepared by the Local Commissioner who was so appointed to demarcate Khasra No. 3676 and to report that suit property was situated in Khasra No. 3675.
2. Mr. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed so as to enable the plaintiff to fill in the lacuna in the pleadings. He also submitted that the amendment sought is not bonafide, and it introduces a new and distinct cause of action. In support of his agruments, he relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) Aisha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, A. I. R. 1978 J. &K. 34
(ii) Banta Singh Ganga Singh and, others v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, A. I. R. 1974 Punj. 247.
(iii) Karnail Singh and Anr. v. Pal Singh, (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 16.
(iv) Shambhu Dayal v. Shri Nandlal, (1989-1) 95 P. L. R. 668.
(v) Food Corp. of India v. Mjs. Krishna Rice and General Mills, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 383.
5. On the other hand, Mr C. B. Goel, learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent herein) submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable because the amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs. He placed on record a certified copy of order dated 16th of October, 1991, in order to show that the costs of Rs. 900/- were tendered and accepted.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I find no merit in the revision petition. The impugned order shows that amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 900/-. Order dated 16th of October, 1991 shows that the costs were accepted. For the facility of reference, the said order is reproduced as under :–
“Present : Sh. S. K. Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants Sh. S. L. Nirwania, Adv., for the respondents.
Costs paid and accepted subject to the rights in challenging the order of amendment of plaint in Revision Petition. Amended plaint filed. File be put on 24.10.91 for written statement, to the amended plaint.
Sd/- ADJ, Karnal.
16-10-91″
In view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Amar Singh v. Perhlad, (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 513 , the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned order after accepting the costs. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh’s case (supra) held that two options were open to the petitioner: (i) to accept costs and treat order as correct, or (ii) not to accept costs and challenge order- Having elected to accept costs, he exercised his choice in accepting order as correct-lodging protest in such circumstances is meaningless.
5. Even otherwise, I find that by the proposed amendment, all that the petitioner wanted to do was to correct the description of the property according to the site plan prepared at the spot by a qualified person. I am in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Additional District Judge that the proposed amendment is necessary in order to avoid any confusion or embrassment to the executing court in the eventuality of any decree being passed in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.