IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (MS) NO. 1677 OF 2010 Baldev Singh and others …….Petitioners. Versus Om Prakash ….Respondent. Present : Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners. Date of Order: 24.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Head learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in a suit being Suit No. 87 of 2007 Om Prakash Vs. Baldev Singh and others, subsequently an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. was filed, which was though allowed, but with was a rider of payment of cost of Rs. 50/-. The case of the petitioner is that although the amendment has been incorporated, the cost has not been deposited and therefore, the amendment is bad in the eyes of law. 3. It is an extremely trivial matter not worthwhile to be looked into under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, directs that the Court below may pass an appropriate order in order to enforce its earlier order, by which the amendment application was allowed, in order to enforce the payment of cost. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.9.2010 Rathour