( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted. ( 2 ) THE appellant who is the owner of the premises in question bearing No. 14/63, punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, had constructed a residential house out of his own funds. It is the case of the appellant that the premises were given on licence to the respondent. The appellant is stated to be residing in the United States. ( 3 ) THE appellant had filed a suit against the respondent for mandatory injunction. After the conclusion of the appellants evidence but before the respondents evidence, the appellant moved an application for production of additional documents. That application was allowed by the trial court on payment of costs. The respondent herein filed a civil revision in the High Court, challenging the said order, but, at the same time, accepted the payment of costs. The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the trial courts order. ( 4 ) IN our opinion, this is not an appropriate case where the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 115 C. P. C. to set aside the order of the trial court. No prejudice can be regarded as having been caused to the respondent with the trial court having permitted the production of additional documents. What is, however, more important is that the respondent had accepted the costs and, therefore, would be estopped from challenging the said order in the High Court. The decision of the trial court allowing the application of the appellant under Order 18, Rule 17a c. P. C. appears to be correct and the High court erred in setting aside the same. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High court dated 21st December, 1999 in Civil revision Petition No. 641/99 is set aside.