ORDER R. C. Lahoti, J. 1. The defendant has come up in revision feeling aggrieved by an order of the trial Court permitting an amendment in the plaint. 2. A simple money suit for the recovery of Rs. 2/- less and odd has been filed by the plaintiff/respondents. The trial has not yet commenced. In the written statement, the defendant/petitioner took certain pleas explaining the nature of the transaction between the parties and disowning his liabitlity to pay the amount. The plaintiffs moved an application for amendment of the plaint setting out their version of the events in reply to the story set up by the defendant in the written statement. The prayer for amendment has been allowed in spite of opposition offered by the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the pleadings and the application for amendment shows that no new relief has been prayed for nor the cause of action set out in the plaint altered. The nature of the suit remains the same. 4. The amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 150/-which costs were promptly tendered by the plaintiff/non- petitioners and accepted by the counsel for the defendant appearing in the trial Court. Thereafter, this revision has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/-non-petitioners has objected to the right of the defendant/petitioner to prefer this revision submitting that the costs tendered by the plaintiff/non-petitioners having been accepted on behalf of the plaintiffs without any demur or reservation, the petitioner was estopped from filing the revision and challenging the order of amendment. He has placed reliance on three single Bench decisions of this Court namely : Premnarain v. Radhaballabh 1980 1 MPWN 101, Anandilal v. Ratlam Central Co-operative Bank 1978 MPLJ SN 54.