GIAN CHAND AND ANR. Vs. PAVITAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the Defendants (petitioners herein) impugning the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who allowed the application of the Plaintiff (respondent herein), permitting him to withdraw the suit itself, against the dismissal of which, he had preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala.

(2.) The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with his possession over the land measuring 15 biswas comprising Khasra No. 960. The Defendants contested the suit and in their written statement stated that they have no concern whatsoever with Khasra No. 962 of which the Plaintiff claims to be the owner. The Defendants rather stated that Defendant No. 2, Smt. Nirmala, had purchased land measuring 10 biswas out of Khasra No. 951 from one Niranjan Kaur on 28 -11 -1975, and she was in possession thereof since then. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on the record, dismissed the suit after holding that the Defendants have not done any act so as to dispossess the Plaintiff from land measuring 15 biswas comprising Khasra No. 962 and therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction as prayed for in the suit. The Plaintiff impugned the judgment and decree of trial Court before the Additional District Judge, Patiala. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Plaintiff made an application for allowing him to withdraw the suit. This application was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, after taking the view "plaintiff being champion of his suit, can withdraw the same at any stage". The order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, is now being challenged by the Defendants by way of this present revision petition.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is not disputed before me that the trial Court dismissed the suit on merits and not on the basis of any formal, defect, and therefore, there was no occasion for the Additional District Judge to allow the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit itself. The Plaintiff who after contest suffered a decree against him, is not entitled as a matter of right to withdraw the suit in appeal. If he is permitted to do so, it would deprive the Defendants of the benefit of trial Court's judgment and decree in their favour. For this, see judgments of this Court in Gurnek Singh and Anr. v/s. Gurbachan Singh and Ors., AIR 1986 P&H. 228, and Shri Guru Maharaj Anandpur Ashram Trust, Guna and Ors. v/s. Chander Parkash and Ors., AIR 1986 P&H 399.