C.R. No. 6537 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGRH C.R. No. 6537 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.11.2009 Mithu Singh(Retd.) Vs. Gurmeet Kaur and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA,J.(oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the on 4.6.2009 whereby plaintiff was permitted to withdraw his earlier statement made on 25.3.2002. The plaintiff Bhura Singh filed a suit for declaration in respect of estate of deceased Bishan Singh. Plaintiff suffered a statement on 25.3.2002 withdrawing the suit but on 12.4.2002 an application was filed by the plaintiff to withdraw his earlier statement made on 25.3.2002. The learned Trial Court has allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw his earlier statement made on 25.3.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has made statement in the court which is sought to be withdrawn by filing an application which is neither verified nor supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to withdraw his statement made on 25.3.2002. Learned Trial Court has examined respective contentions of the parties and noticed that no order of withdrawal of the suit was passed after C.R. No. 6537 of 2009 2 the plaintiff suffered a statement on 25.3.2002. It was found that it can not be said with certainty whether the statement made by the plaintiff was voluntary or not, as the plaintiff has already died and his legal representatives are on the file. It was also found that since the plaintiff wanted to contest the suit on merits, therefore, legal heirs of the deceased should be permitted to contest the suit. The court noticed that statement of Bhura Singh was recorded on an application moved on the same date which was not the date fixed in the case under suspicious circumstances. It appears that Bhura Singh has suffered the alleged statement on 25.3.2002 when the case was not fixed on the said date. Subsequently Bhura Singh had sought to withdraw the said statement. The Court has not acted on the statement and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the statement before an application was filed to withdraw the alleged statement. The plaintiff could withdraw his statement before the same was accepted by the court. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its reversional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE November 11, 2009 RSK