A VIJAYA KUMARI Vs. A NARAHARI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 25.07.2014, in I.A.No.1701 of 2013 in O.S.No.695 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the above -mentioned suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property. Earlier, the petitioner has filed O.SNo.280 of 2011 in respect of 4000 sq.yards of property. Thereafter, she has withdrawn the same with liberty to file a fresh suit. The present suit was filed by deleting 760 sq.yards out of 4000 sq.yards of property for permanent injunction. The respondents filed written statement denying the relief claimed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1701 of 2013 under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC for permission to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit. This application having been dismissed by the lower Court, the petitioner has filed this civil revision petition.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner has averred that in the separate written statements filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.3, new concepts were invented, that if the petitioner seeks amendment, it will have its own limitations and that therefore filing of a comprehensive suit is necessary. The lower Court in its order has observed that the petitioner has withdrawn the earlier suit on the ground that after filing of the suit, the respondents have occupied 760 sq.yards of the land and that excluding the said extent, she has filed the present suit. It is further observed that the petitioner has not assigned any reasons for withdrawal of the present suit in respect of the balance property while she can file a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of 760 sq.yards of land.