RAM JANAM RAM Vs. KRIPA NATH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) This C.M.P. has been directed against the order dtd. 5/5/2022 passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No. 134 of 2016 whereby the application under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. was rejected.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Original Suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff being Original Suit No. 134 of 2016 with the prayer to declare the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. In that suit, on behalf of the defendant, written statement was filed and the issues had not been framed and application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file the fresh suit. The copy of the application is also annexed with this petition but that petition was rejected by the learned Trial Court by passing the impugned order dtd. 5/5/2022 on the ground that since in the Original Suit, relief for declaration was sought and, for the same, limitation was three years and if the application of withdrawal was allowed, the suit would be barred with the limitation. The said finding given by the learned Trial Court is perverse based on the wrong interpretation of the legal provisions of CPC.