BHAJAN LAL Vs. RAJMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are plaintiffs in a Suit for permanent injunction where also a prayer has been made for restraining the defendant from alienating the property in dispute. Original Suit No.11 of 2010 was instituted on 5.1.2010 and an ad-interim injunction was also granted to the petitioners ­ plaintiffs on 6.1.2010.

(2.) TWO months thereafter an application was filed bearing No.30-A on 6.3.2010 praying for an unconditional withdrawal of the Suit. This application was filed by all the plaintiffs. It appears that there was some change of heart and on

(3.) AGGRIEVED the plaintiffs filed a Revision which has also been dismissed after noticing the judgment in the case of The Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple Vs. R. Sathyamoorthy and others, AIR 1999 SC 958 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra and others, (2011) 2 SCC 705. The revisional court endorsed the view taken by the trial court by following the decision of Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam (supra) and accordingly rejected the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the aforesaid decisions have been rendered ignoring the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. which have been found to be applicable and for which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of Rajendra Prasad Gupta (supra) to contend that the judgment clearly holds that an application praying for withdrawal of the application to abandon the Suit was maintainable. Sri Tripathi, therefore, submits that inspite of having noticed the said judgment, the revisional court has taken an erroneous view and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel has further relied on the decision in the case of Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. and another Vs. Madhukar Nowlakha and others, (2006) 3 SCC 699, which has relied on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Rameshwar Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1986 Calcutta 19, to substantiate his submission that there is no specific provision for moving such an application under the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the application can be moved under Section 151 C.P.C. and entertained.