Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10.9.1999 whereby an amount of Rs. 200 was awarded as cost against the petitioner while allowing amendment application by the authority below and by order dated 2.5.2000 whereby revision filed by petitioner was dismissed and an amount of Rs. 500 was awarded as cost. The above orders are under challenge only to the extent cost is awarded by them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a poor person and was not in a position to pay the amount of cost. (2) Awarding of cost was discretionary for the authority below. Cost was awarded by the trial Court as the application for the amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner was allowed. While allowing the application under Order VI, Rule 17, the Court has got jurisdiction/discretion to award cost. Since petitioner himself challenged the validity of the order passed by the trial Court to the extent cost was awarded by which the Revisional Court rightly dismissed the revision and rightly awarded the cost against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that in case the facts regarding poverty of the petitioner are actually correct, the respondent No. 3 who is alleged to be a Raja shall do justice with him when the amount of cost is offered to the said respondent or to his Counsel alongwith the certified copy of this order. Subject to what have been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.