RAZIA Vs. KATHIJA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging an order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Ulundurpet dated 21.07.2011 made in I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 in O.S. No: 387 of 2007.

(2.) THE Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court . The suit is one for a judgment and decree of declaration and for a permanent injunction. Earlier, the revision petitioner has moved an application in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 in the very same suit for appointment of an advocate commissioner which was dismissed by the trial Court. As against such dismissal, the revision petitioner preferred a revision in C.R.P. No: 341 of 2009. This Court, by an order dated 21.07.2009, allowed the said revision by setting aside the order dated 22.12.2009 made in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed the present I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. This I.A. came to be dismissed by the trial Court by holding that instead of making an application for recovery of possession and for impleading therespective parties in view of the development taken place during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff's plea to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit based on the subsequent developments, cannot be entertained. As against such dismissal, the plaintiff is before this Court in this revision petition.

(3.) MR. P. Valliappan learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his consistent plea would submit that in order to avoid any complication in the pending suit, the plaintiff's endeavour is to withdraw the present and file a fresh suit by including every aspect of the issue and therefore, the attempt made by the revision petitioner cannot be faulted with and that the trial Court has not viewed the situation in the right perspective in line with Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. According to him, the trial Court ought to have granted the liberty sought for by the plaintiff.