IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.171 of 2006 Date of decision : July 26, 2010 Jai Devi …Petitioner. Versus Mohan Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has filed a suit in the trial Court for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in his possession over land bearing Khasra No.40/1, measuring 34.13 square metres. It was alleged that the above- described land, though recorded in the ownership of the State, had been in possession of the plaintiff-petitioner and he had acquired title by prescription. 2. Defendants-respondents contested the suit and raised objection that State was a necessary party and suit was bad, on account of its non-joinder. Petitioner then filed an application, seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint and to add State of Himachal Pradesh as party to the suit. That application was dismissed. Petitioner then filed an Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… application, under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file a fresh one, on the same cause of action. That application has been dismissed, vide impugned order, dated 12th April, 2006, Annexure P-3. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Since the plaintiff is alleging that he had acquired title by prescription and the property is recorded in the ownership of the State, the State appears to be a necessary party. In any case, when there was an objection by the defendants-respondents that the suit was bad, on account of non-joinder of State of Himachal Pradesh, trial Court ought to have allowed the plaintiff-petitioner to implead State of Himachal Pradesh as party, when he moved the earlier application. That application having been dismissed, the second application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the suit, with liberty to file a fresh one, ought not to have been dismissed. So, the present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside, application moved by the plaintiff- petitioner, under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is allowed and the suit is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner-plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Records be returned. July 26, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J