BHAJAN LAL Vs. RAJMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has raised an issue of the right of a litigant, in this case a plaintiff, to revoke his right which he has exercised for withdrawing the Suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which has to be adjudicated in the light of the provision aforesaid coupled with the pronouncements of this Court, other High Courts as well as the Apex Court on the anvil of the ratio of the said decisions, and the scope and applicability of the powers conferred on the civil court under Section 151 C.P.C. in dealing with such matters. The outline of the facts of the present case in brief are that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.11 of 2010 where the sole respondent is the only defendant. The relief claimed in the Suit is that the defendant be restrained by way of a permanent injunction from alienating the land in dispute to any third party and not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure-1 which indicates that the disputed property is a plot over which residential constructions have been raised that belonged to Late Kamta Prasad, the real brother of the petitioners-plaintiffs.

(2.) THE sole respondent is stated to be the daughter of the plaintiff/petitioner No.1 - Bhajan Lal, who got her name mutated over the said property in collusion with the revenue officials on the pretext of having inherited the same from her uncle and was attempting to sell of the same when the Suit came to be filed. Sri Kamta Prasad had died issue less and, therefore, the plaintiffs-petitioners claimed that they being the brothers are entitled to claim the said property. An application for interim relief was filed and an ad-interim injunction was granted on 6.1.2010 directing the parties to maintain status-quo and not to alienate the property in dispute.

(3.) ON 3.8.2011, the lawyer for the plaintiffs made an endorsement on the said application No.30-A-1 that the said application for withdrawal of the Suit is not pressed. This endorsement was preceded by an application that was filed on 15.3.2010, being application No.32-C-2, wherein the plaintiffs had prayed that they do not want to press their withdrawal application for which permission be granted. As noted above, dates were fixed on 4.8.2010, 25.8.2010 up to 3.8.2011 and issues were framed in the Suit where after the parties were to lead evidence. It appears that the trial court noticed the pendency of these applications and proceeded to pass the impugned order on 18.8.2012 after noticing the argument of either side and allowed application No.30-A-1. The endorsement of not pressed was set aside and the Suit was dismissed as withdrawn.