1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The first respondent brought a suit for pre--emption against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement contending inter alia that the transaction in question was an exchange and not a sale. On the 29th June 1963, the plaintiff of the suit made an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed after hearing the objection of the petitioner.
2. Subsequently, the plaint of the suit was returned on the 20th April 1964, as its valuation was found to exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. On the same date, the plaint, in its original unamended form was presented in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. Sometime thereafter, the plaintiff filed another application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought was the same as was allowed earlier by the Court which had returned the plaint. In spite of the petitioner's objection, the amendment of the plaint was allowed on the 21st September 1964, on condition of the plaintiff's paying a cost of Rs. 200 to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the High Court in revision against the order allowing the amendment of the plaint. The High Court passed an order maintaining the status quo. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner, along with his lawyer, went to the trial Court and received the cost of Rs. 200 allowed by the Court on account of the amendment of the plaint. The petitioner having intentionally accepted the cost of Rs. 200 in spite of the order of status quo, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision holding that by accepting the cost the petitioner acquiesced in the amendment of the plaint. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of revision, the petitioner has moved this petition seeking special leave to appeal.
3. It is admitted that the cost of Rs. 200 granted by the trial Court in allowing the amendment of plaint was later on with--drawn by the petitioner. He must have withdrawn the amount of the cost with full knowledge that payment of that cost by the plaintiff was a condition precedent to the grant of the amendment. Apart from this, the amendment allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on the 21st September 1964, was not any thing new. The same amendment had been earlier allowed by the Court which returned the plaint on the ground that the valuation of the suit exceeded the Court's jurisdiction. That being so, we do not find any valid reason for our interference with the High Court's order dismissing the revision.
4. The petition is dismissed.