HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1950 of 2011 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1969 of 2011 Date: August 05, 2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1950 of 2011 Between: 1. Abbenda Sangameshwar & another. … Petitioners and Abbenda Shiva Raj … Respondent * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1969 of 2011 Between: 1. Abbenda Sangameshwar & another. … Petitioners and Abbenda Shiva Raj … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1950 of 2011 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1969 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S. No.404 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, filed I.A. No.750 of 2010 therein under Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit in view of the pendency of O.S. No.25 of 2005 filed by the second defendant before the learned V Additional District Judge at Sangareddy. 2. By order dated 31.12.2010, the trial court allowed the said application and granted permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. Separate judgment and decree were passed on the same day dismissing the suit as withdrawn. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit are before this Court. 3. C.R.P. No.1950 of 2011 is filed by the defendants against the order dated 31.12.2010 in I.A. No.750 of 2010 in O.S. No.404 of 2000, while C.R.P. No.1969 of 2011 is filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2010 dismissing O.S. No.404 of 2000 as withdrawn. 4. Heard Ms. Sravya, learned counsel representing Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, and Mr.P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 5. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. 6. The suit, O.S. No.404 of 2000, was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties on the ground that they were joint family properties. The plaintiff and the defendants are siblings. O.S. No.404 of 2000 was dismissed in the first instance by the trial Court on 09.4.2004 and the plaintiff, being aggrieved thereby, filed A.S. No.5 of 2005 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. The appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit and remanded it for a fresh hearing. In the meanwhile, defendant No.2, the sister of the plaintiff, filed O.S. No.25 of 2005 before the learned V Additional District Judge at Sangareddy, for partition of the joint family properties. The plaintiff in O.S. No.404 of 2000 was thereafter transposed as a plaintiff in O.S. No.25 of 2005 by order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A. No.354 of 2009 in O.S. No.25 of 2005. As the said suit was stated to be a comprehensive one, the plaintiff wished to withdraw O.S. No.404 of 2000 claiming that it was defective as it was filed for partial partition of the joint family properties. 7. The defendants contested the plaintiff’s attempt to withdraw the suit contending that as the appellate court had remanded the matter, it was not open to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit thereafter. The trial court, taking note of the fact that the plaintiff had sought withdrawal simplicitor under Order XXIII Rule 1 (1) C.P.C. and had not sought liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3), granted permission as sought for. 8. The provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(1) make it clear that at any time after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff is at liberty to abandon his suit. Such liberty would not be curtailed by the fact that the suit was being heard upon remand by the appellate court. Once the plaintiff wished to withdraw the suit without further ado, no motives could be imputed to him and it was not relevant for the Court as to why he sought to withdraw the suit. In any event, O.S. No.25 of 2005 filed for partition between the parties in O.S. No.404 of 2000 and others is stated to be pending on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, and it would be open to the defendants to raise all such contentions as are available to them in law in the said suit. Any admissions made by the plaintiff during the course of the proceedings in O.S. No.404 of 2000, subject to just exceptions, can always be pressed into service by the defendants in the subsequent suit. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants in this regard is therefore without basis. 9. Viewed from any angle, the order of the trial court permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and the judgment and decree dismissing the suit as withdrawn do not demonstrate any error of law or fact warranting interference by this court. 10. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. C.R.P.M.P. No.2749 of 2011 in C.R.P. No.1950 of 2011 and C.R.P.M.P. No.2779 of 2011 in C.R.P. No.1969 of 2011 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: August 05, 2011. BSB