RITESH SHARMA Vs. HEMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the suit of the appellant for partition of the suit properties have been dismissed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, however, it has been held that there was earlier a partition between the parties with respect to the suit properties. He would also submit that the Nayab Tahsildar Shivrinarayan has passed the order on 18/7/2019 by which the partition of the suit properties by mutation bond have been effected and the appellant as well as other family members have alienated their respective shares of the properties to its respective purchasers. In view of the matter, they have filed application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC on 4/9/2025, however, by the lapse of time there are some differences arose between the parties and now the parties does not want to press this application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and the appellant wants to withdraw the same in view of the order passed by the Nayab Tahsildar Shivrinarayan dtd. 18/7/2019 and also the alienation made by the respective parties.

(2.) The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant has not been objected by the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

(3.) Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the application I.A.No.03/2025 which is the application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC, and the same is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.