THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1150 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 31.12.2008 in I.A.No.3266 of 2008 in O.S.No.922 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC) to permit respondent No.1 (plaintiff) herein to withdraw the suit against petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, was allowed. 2. The petitioner herein is D.4 and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.922 of 2002. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. O.S.No.922 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, was filed by the first respondent herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The evidence on behalf of plaintiff was completed. Respondent No.4 was examined himself as DW.1 in part, and at that point of time, the first respondent herein filed the above application to withdraw the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as she filed the suit without approaching the authorities under provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1974 (for short, ‘the Act’) and in view of the specific bar under Section 14 of the Act for institution of the suit before the Civil Court. The said application was contested by the petitioner/defendant No.4. The Court below after considering the material on record allowed the same by order, dated 31.12.2008. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 4. Though the case was called twice, none appears for the petitioner herein/defendant No.4. It was averred in the grounds that the alleged issuance of notice by the Government under Section 7 of the Act will not have any impact in deciding the title of the respondent No.1 herein/petitioner and the same cannot be treated as a formal defect in filing the suit. It was further averred that the suit filed by respondent No.1 is maintainable in Civil Court under Section 9 CPC. 5. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 herein contended that the first respondent is master of his suit. As there were certain defects in filing the suit, she is entitled to withdraw the suit, especially when the petitioner herein had not led in any evidence. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and after going through the averments made in the petition, it is clear that respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the suit as petitioner herein has not led any evidence in the suit. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1150 OF 2010 Between: Beerapalli Krishna Kishore ...PETITIONER AND Maddipati Sachi Devi and anothers. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1150 OF 2009 SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 YVL