Telangana High Court
Kotla Ramadevi vs Kotla Narendranath on 30 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2407 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri G.Thirupathi Reddy, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused
the entire material on record.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner questioning the orders dated 21.03.2024
passed in I.A.No.22 of 2022 in I.A.No.125 of 2018 in
A.S.No.Nil, on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Nagarkurnool, whereunder the delay of 855 days in
filing the appeal was condoned on payment of costs of
Rs.3,000/-.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner
contends that the Appellate Court has ignored the
delay of 855 days which is erroneous. The said
petition filed for condoning the delay of 855 days to
pay process fee without taking steps for its restoration
is not maintainable and the same ought not to have
SK,J
allowed for condonation of delay without filing separate
petition seeking permission to pay process fee. The
Appellate Court merely basing on the medical
certificate cannot allow the Interlocutory application
and requested to allow the Revision Petition by setting
aside the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides and perusing the
material on record, this Court is of the considered view
that admittedly the petitioner, who is the respondent
No.1 in the said I.A. has not filed any counter denying
the averments made by the petitioner therein and the
learned counsel for the respondent contended that as
per the orders in I.A.No.22 of 2022 in I.A.No.125 of
2018 in A.S.No.Nil, the cost of Rs.3,000/- was paid by
the respondents herein and the same was received by
the petitioner accepting the impugned orders of the
trial Court. The petitioner having received costs as
directed by the Trial Court, cannot question the
impugned orders.
SK,J
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has relied on the Judgment passed in
Smt.Raj Rani v. Nisha Rani1 and Chekka
Suryanarayana v. Saka Rajulamma 2.
The relevant portion of the Judgment passed in
Chekka Suryanarayana v. Saka Rajulamma
(Supra-2) is as follows:
"11. Considering the rival submissions made
by both the counsel with regard to the objection
raised by the counsel for respondents, on perusal
of the orders in Amar Singh v. Perhlad (referred to
supra) the court has categorically held that once
the costs are accepted and it is nothing but
admitting the correctness of the order. Once he
accepted the correctness of the order, the said
party is not entitled to assail the said orders is act
of acceptance of the costs estopped him 2018 SCC
Online Hyd 457 DR,J to probate and reprobate.
Once he exercise the choice for acceptance of the
costs, they are estopped to assail the said orders
and the said judgment was interpreted by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bijendranath Srivatsava v.
Mayank Srivastava (referred to supra) and
accepted the same principle and held that allowing
the amendment could not be assailed so that the
said order was subject to payment of costs and
hence when the costs were already been accepted
by the parties, there they are estopped from
challenging the amendment. But whether there are
two orders the contention of estoppel was raised in
1 2018 0 Supreme (P&H) 2979
High Court for the State of Telangana
SK,J
the other order is not accepted, and further held
that whether the order is in the nature of
conditional order and payment of costs is a
condition precedent while allowing the petition in
such a case it is open for the party not to accept the
benefits of the costs."
6. In the instant case, the petitioner herein has not
filed any counter in the I.A., and also received the
costs as per the impugned orders and the above said
Judgment is squarely apply to the instant case. Once
the petitioner received the costs and no counter filed in
the I.A., the petitioner cannot question the validity of
the impugned orders.
7. In view of the above findings, this Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any
pending, shall stand dismissed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 30.08.2024
BB
