GIRDHARI LAL Vs. SEWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) is as to whether the appellate Court could permit withdrawal of a suit which has been dismissed by the trial Court and the judgment/decree has been subject matter of appeal filed by plaintiff -respondent No. 1 to withdraw the suit as well as appeal by passing the order in a routine and casual manner. The order passed by the Additional District Judge, reads as under:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which led to the filing of the present revision petition are that plaintiff -respondent No.l filed a civil suit against the defendant -respondents No.2, 3 and 1, namely, Municipal Committee who sanctioned the site plan and two sons of plaintiff -respondent No.l himself. It was a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction with the averments that plaintiff -respondent No.l is owner of residential plot No.EP -201 situated at Sohna, tehsil and district Gurgaon. A site plan was also attached with the plaint. Plaintiff -respondent No.l further averred that he had purchased the said plot in dispute from his brother Chetan Dass vide registered sale deed dated 24.5.1974. It was asserted that he never submitted any site plan for according sanction with the object of raising construction over the said plot in the office of Municipal Committee, Sohna i.e. defendant -respondent No.2. The said site plan was alleged to have been submitted by defendant -respondents No.3 and 4 and the same was sanctioned in their name on 8.6.1982. A declaration was sought that the order dated 8.6.1982 passed by defendant -respondent No.2 sanctioning the site plan is illegal, null and void on the ground that it was plaintiff -respondent No. 1 who has been owner in possession of the plot in dispute and defendant -respondents No.2 and 3 had got no concern with the same. It was further asserted that defendant -respondents No.2 and 3 had no right or authority to submit and get site plan sanctioned for construction regarding the property of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 and the order passed by defendant -respondent No.2 sanctioning the site plan without verifying the ownership of the plot in favour of defendant -respondents No.3 and 4 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Defendant -respondents No.3 and 4 filed their written statement admitting the claim of plaintiff -respondent No.l. However, defendant -respondent No.2 i.e. Municipal Committee, Sohna contested the suit and filed the written statement. When the defendant -petitioner came to know about the filing of the suit, he filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code and became party to that suit. He also filed his separate written statement pleading that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 was estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct. It was pleaded that plaintiff -respondent No.l has concealed the material facts and the suit has been filed with an oblique motive to destroy the evidence. The defendant -petitioner also disputed the boundaries of the plot as given in the site plan produced by plaintiff -respondent No.l. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following six issues:

(3.) WHETHER the suit is false and frivolous and defendant No.4 is entitled to special costs? OPD