HARKIRAT SINGH MANGAT Vs. ROHIT THAPAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for impleading Rohit Thapar, Advocate, as party is dismissed.

(2.) The Petitioner, who himself is an Advocate had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the Defendant- Respondents praying that possession of the land in dispute should be restored to him and a declaration should be granted that agreement and lease deed executed between Plaintiff-Petitioner and the Defendant-Respondents in respect of the property on which brick kiln had been installed were liable to be cancelled. Besides this, the Plaintiff- Petitioner had sought a decree for grant of damages to the tune of '32,34,040/- with interest. On March 18, 2008, the trial Court passed the following order:

(3.) A perusal of the abovesaid order indicates that the Plaintiff Petitioner had allegedly made a statement that he had taken physical possession of the property as it had been handed over to him by the Defendant- Respondents, he had withdrawn all the proceedings reserving his right for recovery of the amount due from the Defendant on the same cause of action. The trial Court had jurisdiction under Order 23 Code of Civil Procedure to permit the Plaintiff-Petitioner to withdraw the suit or abandon part of claim as per Order 23 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time, the trial Court had a jurisdiction to grant permission to the Plaintiff to institute fresh suit for the same subject matter or for part of his claim as per provisions of Order 23 Rule 3(b) Code of Civil Procedure subject to imposition of some costs for filing fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter.