CHAMPA DEVI Vs. PARAM VED GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the court below dated 19.7.2014 by which the application of the petitioner/plaintiff for restoration of the suit which was withdrawn by her on 23.7.2007 has been dismissed after recording of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff with respect to whether the petitioner had or had not given the consent.

(2.) THE court below records that though the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she is an illiterate lady and she did not know that she is appearing in court and making a statement for withdrawal of the suit but the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be believed inasmuch as admittedly she asked one advocate Mr. M. Sultan Siddiqui to appear in her case and the said advocate was not summoned in evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff to show that she did not ask her advocate Mr. M. Sultan Siddiqui to withdraw the suit. The court below also notes that earlier a suit filed for the same property by the plaintiff was allowed to be withdrawn subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/ - and thereafter the subject suit was filed. In fact the petitioner/plaintiff personally appeared before the judge and recorded statement in court for withdrawal of the suit. The presiding officer of the court hence allowed the petitioner/plaintiff to withdraw the suit in terms of her statement.

(3.) I completely agree with the aforesaid observations and it is clear that the plaintiff is deliberately harassing the defendant. The fact that petitioner has no case becomes clear from paras 3 to 5 of the preliminary objections in the written statement and which read as under: -