PARTHIBAN Vs. VIJAYA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.268 of 2003 before the District Munsif Court, Panruti against the respondents and the revision petitioner's father, Pandurangan for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property. When the case was posted for trial on 04.03.2017, the then counsel suggested the revision petitioner to file an application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit with regard to the same subject property since the present plaint was of technical defects. Hence, the revision petitioner has filed an application in IA.No.182 of 2017 under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to permit the revision petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said application was dismissed. Therefore, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is entitled to ? .. " share in the suit property on the basis of oral partition. Hence, the revision petitioner filed the instant application. Further, the present suit has been filed for permanent injunction without seeking the prayer of declaration. Therefore, the instant application has been filed by the revision petitioner for withdrawal of the suit with liberty. But without considering the above contentions, the said application has been dismissed by the court below. Hence, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials available on record.