C. R. No. 2728 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2728 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 11, 2010 Sandeep and others .... Petitioners Vs. Surender and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by some of the plaintiffs assailing judgment dated 07.03.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. Some of the defendants moved application for setting aside ex- parte judgment and decree dated 01.05.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. The said application was dismissed by learned trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide order dated 26.11.2008. However, appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by the Appellate Court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide impugned judgment (Annexure P-3) dated C. R. No. 2728 of 2009 2 07.03.2009 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.05.1997 have been set aside on payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved, some of the plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the outset, learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that the plaintiffs have accepted the cost amount of Rs.2,000/- pursuant to impugned judgment dated 07.03.2009 without any protest, and therefore, the petitioners are debarred from challenging the impugned judgment. There is considerable merit in the contention. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of the aforesaid contention, has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Khanna vs. International Society for Krishna Consciousness reported as Vol. CXXVII – (2001-1) P. L. R. 704 and on various judgments of Single Benches of this Court namely Sushil Kumar vs. The Panchayat Samiti, Kaithal reported as 1989 P. L. J. 451, an unreported judgment dated 15.07.2008 passed in Civil Revision No. 4286 of 2007 and also a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Perhlad and others reported as 1989 P. L. J. 496. The ratio of all these judgments is that if cost amount is accepted, the party accepting the cost amount is debarred from challenging the order. Even if cost amount is accepted under protest, even then the order cannot be challenged by the party accepting the cost. In the instant case, the cost amount was accepted unconditionally and therefore, the petitioners are debarred from challenging the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had engaged counsel for filing the instant revision petition on 22.03.2009, but thereafter counsel for the petitioners in the Lower Court C. R. No. 2728 of 2009 3 accepted the cost amount without authority. The contention cannot be accepted because counsel for the petitioners in the Lower Court continued to be counsel for the petitioners and his authority had not been withdrawn by the petitioners. Consequently, acceptance of the cost amount by the said counsel cannot be said to be without authority. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is not maintainable because the petitioners have accepted the cost amount awarded under the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. January 11, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE