RAM PIARI Vs. SHRI AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision petition against the order of the learned. Subordinate Judge, Palampur, permitting the respondents to withdraw the suit filed by them with liberty to file a fresh suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a representative suit for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in suit, enjoying several specific rights therein, and a sale deed dated July 13, 1973 executed by the second defendant was null and void and not binding on them. An application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil P. C. was filed along with the plaint. It appears that the trial Court omitted to dispose of the application and proceeded with the trial of the suit When it had recorded the evidence and reached the stage of arguments, it was discovered that the application under Order 1, Rule 8 has not been disposed of. The plaintiffs applied to the trial Court requesting it to dispose of that application. But before it could be disposed of, counsel for the plaintiffs made a statement expressing a desire to withdraw the suit on the ground that it contained a formal defect. The formal defect, it seems, was that permission under Order 1, Rule 8 had not been granted. The trial Court made an order dated July 3, 1976 on the basis of the statement of counsel for the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit as withdrawn with permission to the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The revision petition is directed against that order.

(3.) At the out set, it is urged for the respondents that the petitioner had agreed to the order prayed for by the respondents and therefore this revision petition should not be entertained. Now, Ground No. 5 in the revision petition does state :-