Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanaparthi Sudha Rani vs Kancherla Nageswara Rao on 13 November, 2024
APHC010372372022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1481/2022
Between:
Pujala Venkata Lakshmamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Velpula Kasamma ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SUBBA REDDY M V
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1481 of 2022
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the
Order dated 16.06.2022 passed in I.A.No.535 of 2020 in
O.S.No.182 of 2015 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,
Prakasam District.
2. The Petitioners are the Defendants. The suit O.S.No.182 of
2015 was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent seeking for declaration of
her title over the suit schedule property and for a consequential
permanent injunction. After filing the suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff
filed an application I.A.No.535 of 2020 seeking to re-open her
evidence, to permit her to submit further evidence to substantiate her
case and to receive the chief examination affidavit of P.W.2, which
was filed along with said application. The trial Court has passed a
reasoned order on 16.06.2022 and allowed the I.A on payment of
costs for Rs.1,000/- to the Defendants/Petitioners herein.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Sura, learned counsel for the Petitioners
and Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent.
4. During the course of arguments, on a query posed by the
Court as to whether costs awarded by the trial court are accepted or
not. The counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants, on instructions,
fairly submits that the amount awarded towards costs is received by
the Petitioners/Defendants.
5. Once the order imposing costs by the trial Court has been
accepted by the Petitioners/Defendants, this Court is of the opinion
that petitioners are estopped to challenge the order impugned in the
Civil Revision Petition. This position of law is long established by
judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Madras and other High courts
from pre-independence times. The Halsbury laws also refers to this
principle and the same was referred to by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Nagubai Ammal & Ors Vs B.Shama rao & Ors AIR 1956 SC 593
at paragraph 21 and relevant portion is extracted below;
"It is clear from the above observations that the maxim that a
person cannot „approbate and reprobate‟ is only one application of the
doctrine of election, and that its operation must be confined to reliefs
claimed in respect of the same transaction and to the persons who are
parties thereto. The law is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England,
Vol. XIII, p. 464, para 512:
"On the principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate, a
species of estoppel has arisen which seems to be intermediate
between estoppel by record and estoppel in pais, and may
conveniently be referred to here. Thus a party cannot, after taking
advantage under an order (e.g. payment of costs), be heard to say
that it is invalid and ask to set it aside, or to set up to the
prejudice of persons who have relied upon it a case inconsistent
with that upon which it was founded; nor will he be allowed to go
behind an order made in ignorance of the true facts to the prejudice of
third parties who have acted on it".
6. A Division bench of this court in The Metal Press Works Ltd.
vs Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd. AIR 1976 AP 205
also considered this position of law and held that once costs are
awarded, it is not open to the party to question the validity of the
order. In that case, written statement was permitted to be amended
on costs and the validity of the amendment was being questioned in
appeal and it was in that context, this court held that such a
challenge is not available as the costs were accepted. The relevant
portion of the order at paragraph 59 is extracted below;
"The conditional order passed by the trial court granting the
amendment of the written statement must be regarded as an entire
whole giving a benefit in one respect to the plaintiff and in another
respect to the defendant. To put it differently, the benefit of costs to
the plaintiff would not have been granted but for the corresponding
benefits of amending the written statement as at a late stage to the
defendant. The acceptance of costs in a conditional order would bar
or prevent such party from questioning the jurisdiction or validity of
the order granting amendment. In the circumstances, it must be held
that the respondent-plaintiff was satisfied with the conditional order
and, therefore, it must be deemed to have accepted the same and it
is not open to it to challenge the same in this court. We, therefore,
hold that the awarding of costs to the plaintiff is, in fact and
substance, a part of the entire order and the plaintiff who
accepted a part of the same relating toward of costs is barred
from attacking the rest of the order pertaining to the amendment
of the original written statement which is against him.
60. This view of ours gains support from decided cases. The
earliest authority on this aspect is the decision of Queen's Bench
Division in King v. Simmonds (1815) 7 QB 289. Therein, it was
held that where a party accepts costs awarded under an order of
Court, he cannot subsequently object to the validity or jurisdiction of
that order as, but for such conditional order, no costs were payable at
that time."
7. As the Petitioners herein/Defendants accepted the costs
imposed by the trial court, they are estopped from challenging the
merits of the impugned order.
8. In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel,
pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 13.11.2024
Pnr
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1481 of 2022
Date: 13.11.2024
Pnr
