NANU A. T. Vs. PODICHIKANDI NANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 242/2014 in O.S No. 118/2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. The said application was filed for the grant of withdrawing the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. It was submitted that the plaint was drafted very poorly and it was came to the notice of the petitioner / plaintiff at the time when the suit was listed for trial. He had engaged a new counsel in that suit and he advised the plaintiff to withdraw the suit as the same has so many defects including wrong description of schedule property, the nature of acquisition and the nature of possession etc. It was also admitted by both parties that a commission was issued in that suit who filed a report. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that various pleadings raised would defeat the legitimate rights of plaintiff as the pleadings are not specific as to the rights, interest and title claimed by him. Another suit was also initiated by the second respondent herein against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 216/2006, which is pending consideration.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent took reliance on the decision reported in Mathai Vs. Ranjith Peter, 2012 (4) KHC 386. The above said decision was drawn in a case wherein withdrawal was sought by the parties on the ground that there is lack of pleadings in the plaint. But in the present application the situation is different. The suit and the plaint itself drafted very poorly without showing the real nature of acquisition and without disclosing the actual extent of the property and without giving a correct description of the property. On the other hand there is no occasion for causing any prejudices to the parties if permission is granted for instituting a fresh suit especially when the dispute is with respect to the extent of property and the boundary separating the same from the adjoining property. In that situation, I am of the view that it is just and reasonable to allow the plaintiff to have another suit for redressing their grievance. Hence the order of the lower Court liable to be interfered and I am doing so. Permission is granted to the plaintiff / petitioner to withdraw the suit with liberty to file or institute a fresh suit.