MAHADEOJI CHANDRESWARAJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 12-11-2001, by which the application filed by the revisionist under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") for giving permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh, if the need be arisen, has been rejected.

(2.) In respect of the property in dispute, the Estate Officer, in exercise of its power under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act, 1965"), passed the order. The said order was challenged in appeal and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the present revisionist vide order dated 14-7-92 directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondents filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 14-7-92, which stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11-1-2000. Petitioner had also filed a suit for declaration and injunction in 1976 which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 1-6-96. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred appeal against the said order and in that appeal, petitioner filed an application under O. 23, R. l(3).of the Code to permit him to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh, if need be arisen, which hasbeen rejected for not showing the "sufficient grounds". Hence this revision.

(3.) . Mr. A. L. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that once petitioner had succeeded before the Appellate Court and the order of the Estate Officer to evict him under the provisions of the Act, 1965 has been set aside and the writ petition against the same has been dismissed by this Court and as there is no apprehension at this stage for the petitioner from being evicted, the appellate Court has committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction not allowing the petitioner to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh, in case the need be arisen. On the contrary, Mr. Kailash Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the appeal has been allowed under the Act, 1965 on 14-7-92 and the suit filed in 1976 was decided on 1-6-96; the appeal was pending since then, therefore, there was no "sufficient ground" shown by the petitioner to withdraw the same with liberty to file a fresh, if need be arisen, hence this Court should not interfere with the order in its limited revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.