ORDER : 1. Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. CRP Nos. 108, 102 and 103 of 2022 are filed against separate orders, dated 28.11.2022 in I.A. Nos. 864, 865 and 866 of 2022 respectively on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 3. Respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 13 of 2012 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and alternatively for the relief of recovery of possession of suit schedule property. Suit schedule property is Ac. 4-00 cents of land in D. No. 28/1A. Plaintiffs are claiming title to the property by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 02.02.2007 and, also the rectification deed, dated 16.06.2008 with regard to sub-division number of the suit survey number. 4. Defendants filed written statement and contended inter alia that plaintiffs earlier filed suit in O.S. No. 529 of 2008. I.A. No. 1145 of 2008 was for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed. Plaintiffs filed CMA No. 11 of 2009 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Later plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 826 of 2009 for amendment of plaint seeking declaration of title and delivery of possession and the same was allowed. Principal Junior Civil Judge returned the suit on 18.04.2011 to present before appropriate Court. However, without representing the same, plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 13 of 2012. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. Defendants also filed counter claim seeking cancellation of registered sale deed, dated 02.02.2007 and subsequent rectification deed, dated 16.06.2008 by paying Court Fee under Section 37 of the APCF & SV Act. Counter claim was filed by way of amendment by filing I.A. No. 697 of 2017 and after filing of the counter claim, plaintiff No. 1 filed written statement. 6. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A. No. 864 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit; I.A. No. 865 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW-1 and I.A. No. 866 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 1A(3) CPC to receive documents. 7. 6. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A. No. 864 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit; I.A. No. 865 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW-1 and I.A. No. 866 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 1A(3) CPC to receive documents. 7. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, it was contended inter-alia that to find out the original source of title of ancestors, defendants made extensive search in the Sub-Registrar Office, Kadapa, Urban and obtained certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 21.08.1934 under which D. Usman Khan sold away the suit schedule property in favour of Puttamreddy Chalama Reddy, who is no other than the brother of the grandfather of defendants’ vendor; that sons of Puttamreddy Chalama Reddy and sons of Puttam Rami Reddy partitioned their properties under registered partition deed dated 05.08.1957 under which father of defendants’ vendor got ‘D’ schedule property, as such, those documents are crucial to prove defendants’ case. Hence, the above applications are filed. 8. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the application. 9. Trial Court by separate orders, dated 28.11.2022 dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the above respective revisions are filed. 10. While allowing I.A. No. 866 of 2022, an application filed to receive documents, trial Court imposed condition to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before 02.12.2022. Pursuant to the conditional order passed by the trial Court, defendants paid costs and learned counsel for the plaintiffs’ received costs. Since order, dated 28.11.2022 was complied with suit was reopened and matter stands posted to today i.e. 19.01.2023 for marking of documents. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, the above revisions are filed. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier defendants filed CRP No. 1415 of 2022 against order in I.A. No. 689 of 2021 in O.S. No. 13 of 2012 CRP No. 1414 of 2022 and the same was allowed by order, dated 15.11.2022. He further submits that while allowing the revision, this Court observed that except carrying out the amendment, the defendants shall not be allowed to lead any further evidence either oral or documentary since, it was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that no evidence be required to be let in further. He further submits that while allowing the revision, this Court observed that except carrying out the amendment, the defendants shall not be allowed to lead any further evidence either oral or documentary since, it was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that no evidence be required to be let in further. Learned counsel would submit that in contrary to the said observation, the above petitions were allowed. Therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that while allowing I.A. No. 866 of 2022, to receive documents, trial Court imposed condition to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before 02.12.2022 and pursuant to the conditional order passed by the trial Court, defendants paid costs and same were received by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. He submits that having accepted costs, the plaintiff cannot maintain present revision. 14. The points to be considered are: (1) Whether, a litigant after receiving costs imposed by Court, as condition precedent, while allowing petition, acquiesced right to file revision against the said order? (2) Whether doctrine of estoppel by election applies to the present case? 15. While allowing I.A. No. 866 of 2022, application filed to receive documents, trial Court imposed condition to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before 02.12.2022. When revisions are taken up for consideration, learned counsel for respondents passed receipt whereby learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the suit, received costs, the endorsement reads as follows: “Received costs. K. Sallauddin Advocate For D. Reddiah, Advocate for respondent/plaintiff.” 16. In Metal Press Work Ltd. vs. Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd. 1975 SCC Online AP 18 it was held as under: “The awarding of costs to the plaintiff while allowing the amendment of the written statement, is, in fact and substance, a part of the entire order and the plaintiff who accepted a part of the same relating to award of costs is barred from attacking the rest of the order pertaining to the amendment of the original written statement which is against him.” 17. In Amar Singh vs. Perhlad, AIR 1989 (P&H) 229 , it was held as under: “Whenever costs are accepted under protest, it always shows that the person concerned has not acquiesced in the order. In Amar Singh vs. Perhlad, AIR 1989 (P&H) 229 , it was held as under: “Whenever costs are accepted under protest, it always shows that the person concerned has not acquiesced in the order. His non-acquiescence is only for showing that the order could be challenged at a subsequent stage as otherwise there can be hardly any purpose for raising a protest before receiving the payment. The crux of the matter to be seen is as to what the petitioner did and not what he said. By acceptance of costs, he accepted the order as correct. He has taken benefit of the order. He cannot now turn around and say he will also challenge the order. By allowing him to challenge the order would amount to nullifying the effect of acceptance of costs. In such circumstances, he cannot approbate and reprobate. His own act would estop him. At the most it can be said that the petitioner had two options, one to accept the costs and to treat the order as correct, the other not to accept the costs and to challenge the same in revision. He having elected to accept the costs, he exercised his choice in accepting the order as correct. His lodging the protest in such circumstances is meaningless.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bijendranath Srivatsava vs. Mayank Srivastava, (1994) 6 SCC 117 held as under: “That apart the principle of estoppel which precludes a party from assailing an order allowing a petition subject to payment of costs where the other party has accepted the costs in pursuance of the said order applies only in those cases where the order is in the nature of a conditional order and payment of costs is a condition precedent to the petition being allowed. In such a case it is open to the party not to accept the benefit of cost and thus avoid the consequence of being deprived of the right to challenge the order on merits. In such a case it is open to the party not to accept the benefit of cost and thus avoid the consequence of being deprived of the right to challenge the order on merits. The said principle would not apply to a case where the direction for payment of costs is not a condition on which the petition is allowed and costs have been awarded independently in exercise of the discretionary power of the court to award costs because in such a case the party who has been awarded costs has no opportunity to waive his right to question the validity or correctness of the order. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Metal Press Works Ltd. vs. Guntur Merchants Cotton Press Co. Ltd. (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the High Court, proceeds on the basis that awarding of costs was, in fact and substance, a part of the entire order allowing amendment in written statement and the said order was a conditional one. The decision of the Madras High Court in Sree Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu vs. Raja Venkata Perumal and the decisions of the Patna High Court in Ramcharan Mahto vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and Kapura Kuer vs. Narain Singh on which reliance has been placed in the said judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court also emphasise that the orders under challenge were conditional orders and payment of costs was a condition precedent to allowing the petition. In J. Devaiah vs. Nagappa, the order allowing amendment of the election petition contained a direction regarding payment of costs. It was held that the application was allowed without any condition and that the order was not a conditional order and principle of estoppel was held inapplicable.” 19. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had. 20. In R. Samudra Vijayam Chettiar vs. Srinivasa Alwar and Others, 1955 SCC Online Mad. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had. 20. In R. Samudra Vijayam Chettiar vs. Srinivasa Alwar and Others, 1955 SCC Online Mad. 186 : (1956) 69 LW 62 , it was held as under: “........Where a man is entitled to one of two inconsistent rights and he has with full knowledge done an unequivocal act indicating his choice of the one he cannot afterwards pursue the other which after the first choice is by reason of the inconsistency no longer open to him. Such cases do not require detriment to the other party as foundation for their application.....” 21. In the case on hand, as stated supra, pursuant to the conditional order, passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 866 of 2022, plaintiffs received the costs and copy of receipt is also placed before this Court. In fact, trial court not only passed conditional order but also further held that in case of failure to pay the amount the I.A. stands dismissed. Petitioners having made their election by accepting costs cannot be allowed to retract. Therefore, as stated supra, principle of estoppel applies against the petitioners. 22. In view of the above expressions and considering the fact that learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the suit, received costs these revisions are not maintainable. Therefore, these revisions are liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 24. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.