HARMEET SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order is dated 14.08.2006. The application filed by the respondent Dalip Singh under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been allowed; correspondingly the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code was dismissed; the Court was of the view that the suit has become infructuous.

(2.) THIS is an unfortunate dispute between a son and a father. Record shows that the plaintiff Harmit Singh had filed a suit for partition against his father; contention was that the suit property bearing No. 2429, Tilak Street, Paharganj, New Delhi is co-owned by him; accordingly suit was filed. In the course of the proceedings, an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code was filed; this was on 19.08.1998. THIS application was pending when on behalf of the plaintiff a statement was made by his counsel Mr. P.K. Bhardwaj dated 27.08.1998 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit which permission was granted to him and the suit had accordingly been withdrawn.

(3.) AS noted supra, suit No. 581/1990 had been disposed of on 06.03.2000. The categorical finding returned in this suit is that the subject matter of the suit property is not co-owned by Harmit Singh as is his contention vehemently argued even today. In fact the whole case of the petitioner is that his suit which he had filed for partition which had been withdrawn on 27.08.1998 was unauthorisedly withdrawn; submission is that the property is co-owned by him.