CR No.5733 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5733 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.4.2009 Smt. Poonam Rani ......Petitioner Versus Boota Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish K. Verma, Advocate for Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fazilka whereby application filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file fresh suit has been allowed. As per the averments made in this petition, the plaintiff- respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land as detailed in the plaint and that defendant No.4- petitioner, along with others have got no right, title or interest in the suit land and also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from getting the mutation sanctioned regarding the property owned and possessed by Late Iqbal Devi, who was grandmother of the plaintiff, by virtue of an alleged Will dated 21.1.1975 executed by Lekh Raj Khera son of Bahadur Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff-respondents, and from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondents. Notice of the aforesaid suit was given to the petitioner along CR No.5733 of 2007 2 with other defendants and in pursuance of the notice, the petitioner appeared in the suit and filed the power of attorney through her counsel. The case was adjourned to 2.8.2007 for filing of written statement of the petitioner and for service of the remaining defendants. On 11.6.2007, an application filed by the plaintiff-respondents, the case was taken up and on the statement of the plaintiff the suit was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that permission to withdraw the suit was granted with liberty to file a fresh suit without taking into account the contents of scope of Order 23 rule 3 CPC and thus, prayed for setting aside the aforesaid order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and argued that the trial Court has passed the impugned order keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and that the same is in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the case filed by the plaintiff-respondent was at the initial stage and even no written statement was filed by the petitioner. In his application, the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that after filing of the suit, the mutation qua the suit land was entered and sanctioned in his name and therefore, he was satisfied and he did not wish to proceed further with the case. The Court can grant permission for filing a fresh case on the same cause of action if the Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit or part of a claim as provided. In the present case, the suit was at a initial stage and even the written statement was not filed. In CR No.5733 of 2007 3 the present revision petition, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. I find no ground to interfere in the revision petition. Dismissed. April 28, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE