MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed against the orders dated January 31, 1989 passed by the Munsif, Ladnu on the two applications of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10; C. P. C. in the suit No. 50 of 1986, Vaidya Shyam Sunder Joshi v. Jain Vishva Bharti Ladnu and its connected Miscellaneous Case No. 28 of 1986. Both these applications have been allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- each as costs. The only grievance of the petitionres, in both these revision petitions, is against the order awarding Rs. 150/- as costs in each case.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to impose cost while allowing the applications. In the alternative, he also contended that the discretion has not been exercised in a judicious manner. There is no substance in the revision petitions. The petitioner has not suffered any irreparable injury. The orders have not also occasioned a failure of justice. It cannot also be said that the trial court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity while awarding costs. It is cle-arly provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the C. P. C. that an application may be allowed on such terms as appear to the Court just. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the order imposing costs has arbitrarily been passed. Both the revision petitions are summarily dismissed. .;