JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - By bringing this application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC, Joginder Singh, who had been respondent in Civil Revision No. 1435 of 2011 seeks review of the orders dated 19.10.2011 passed by this court deciding the said revision petition. 2. In a suit brought by Joginder Singh applicant for possession of a plot of land after removal of the structure standing thereon, he applied for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Vide order dated 15.2.2011, the said application had been allowed subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs. The said order was challenged by Shamsher Singh and others, the defendants before this court and vide orders dated 19.10.2011, the revision petition was allowed and the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian allowing the application for amendment of the plaint, was set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this court has held the revision petition to be maintainable despite the fact that the petitioners had accepted the costs, subject to payment of which the application for amendment was allowed. According to him, the judgment of this court in Raj Kumar Vs. Narain Dass 1992 (3) PLR 262 was cited at the time of arguments in which despite the fact that the costs were accepted under protest, the revision petition was held not maintainable because the party accepting the costs had admitted the correctness of the order. He has submitted that this court has drawn a distinction between the acceptance of costs without protest and under protest and has held that if the costs have been accepted under protest, the right to challenge the order cannot be taken away from the party accepting the costs. He has further submitted that this view is contrary to the view taken in Raj Kumar’s case (supra). He has prayed that if this court does not agree with the proposition of law laid down in Raj Kumar’s case (supra), the matter may be referred to Larger Bench for decision. 4. Learned counsel for the non-applicants has submitted that the distinction has been rightly drawn by this court between acceptance of costs under protest and without protest. He drew my attention to a decision of 5. Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead) through LRs Vs. Mayank Srivastava 1994 AIR (SC) 2562. 4. Learned counsel for the non-applicants has submitted that the distinction has been rightly drawn by this court between acceptance of costs under protest and without protest. He drew my attention to a decision of 5. Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead) through LRs Vs. Mayank Srivastava 1994 AIR (SC) 2562. According to him, it has been laid down in this decision that the principle of estoppel would not apply in a case unless the costs have been the condition precedent to the order. Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Bijendra Nath Srivastava’s case (supra) has drawn a distinction between the cases in which the costs have been awarded as a condition precedent to the allowing of the application and those cases where the costs have been awarded independently in exercise of the discretionary power of the court to award costs. 6. The order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the trial court is clear enough. The application for amendment of the plaint was allowed for other reasons and the costs were awarded independently in exercise of the discretionary power of the court. The costs have not been awarded as a condition precedent to the allowing of the application. In such a case, acceptance of costs under protest or without protest would not preclude the party from challenging the order and the revision petition could not be dismissed on this ground only. 7. The decision in Raj Kumar’s case (supra) is dated 21.2.1992 and the later decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Bijendra Nath Srivastava’s case (supra) authoritatively covers the point and no different result can be envisaged in the facts of the case. 8. In these circumstances, no error apparent on the record appears to have been committed in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by this court does not admit of any scope for review. The application for review is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------