IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.122 of 2010. Date of decision: 20.5.2011. Kinauri & anr. ….. Petitioners. Vs. Dassu Ram …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.9.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 4, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2008. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier the learned court below on 6.6.2009 while deciding preliminary issue of jurisdiction has held that civil court has jurisdiction to decide the suit, but now vide order dated 22.9.2010, the learned court below has allowed the respondent to withdraw the suit by holding that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. I have gone through the order dated 22.9.2010. The court below has noticed the contention of the respondent to the effect that court below has already rejected the jurisdiction point against the respondent vide order dated 6.6.2009. However, the court has Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… noticed the other contention of the respondent that suit is bad for partial partition and for that reason the suit is likely to fail. The learned court below has not permitted the respondent to withdraw the suit to approach the revenue court on the ground that civil court has no jurisdiction. The learned court below has permitted the respondent to withdraw the suit keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case. One of the pleas of the respondent is that suit is bad for partial partition. The court below has permitted the applicant to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh suit if permissible in law subject to payment of `1,000/- cost. There is no error of jurisdiction. The learned court below has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 3. There is no merit in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. May 20, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.