A SUBRAMANI Vs. RATHINAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.2.2012 in I.A. No. 336 of 2011 in O.S. No. 23 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli. The Revision Petitioners are the Plaintiffs in the Suit O.S. No. 23 of 2010 filed for declaration to declare title of the First Plaintiff to the suit A schedule property and for permanent injunction against the Defendants and also for declaring title of the Second Plaintiff to the suit B schedule property and for permanent injunction. The Respondents/Defendants filed Written Statement and contested the Suit.

(2.) Earlier, the Revision Petitioners filed an Application in I.A. No. 419 of 2010 in the very same Suit for amendment of pleadings. The said I.A. came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, as against which, the Petitioners have moved this Court in a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD) No. 3292 of 2011, which was dismissed by order dated 6.9.2011, confirming the order of the Trial Court passed in the said I.A. No. 419 of 2010. Thereafter, the Petitioners have filed the present I.A. in I.A. No. 336 of 2011 under Order 23, Rule 1 and Section 151, C.P.C. to permit the Petitioners to withdraw the Suit with liberty to file fresh Suit for the same cause of action. The Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit and the Trial Court, on a consideration of the case, dismissed I.A. No. 336 of 2011, as against which, the present C.R.P. is filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs.

(3.) Mr. C. Sanjai Baba, learned Counsel representing Mr. V. Nicholas, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, consistently pleaded before this Court that the First Petitioner purchased the properties from Dhanasekaran and sold one of the properties to the Second Petitioner and they wanted to amend the Plaint and include the facts and hence, they earlier filed the Petition for amendment in I.A. No. 419 of 2010, which was dismissed, and on Revision, the order of the Trial Court was confirmed by this Court, and therefore, there is no other remedy for the Petitioners but to withdraw the Suit and to institute a fresh Suit in respect of the suit properties by including the necessary parties stating all the correct facts, and therefore, the Trial Court has not looked into the claim of the Petitioners in proper perspective under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC in exercising inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C.