IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.R. No.1148 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.11.2010 Bawa Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat of Village Machhaunda .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the applicant- petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. C.M. No.25454-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration of the revision petition, the same is allowed and the order dated 28.9.2010 is recalled. C.R. No.1148 of 2010 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his exclusive possession over the suit property. Vide order dated 11.8.2009, evidence of the petitioner/ plaintiff was closed by order of the Court under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.8.2009 passed by the trial Court. During the pendency of said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for granting permission to him to C.R. No.1148 of 2010 (O&M) -2- abandon the suit. Vide impugned order dated 16.11.2009, the District Judge, Ambala allowed the petitioner to abandon the suit. However, he further observed that it shall not affect the rights already determined by the trial Court between the parties and the same shall be final. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that in view of the judgment of this Court in Satish Bhardwaj v. Dhani Ram, 1998(2) PLR 73, while granting permission to abandon the suit, the Court should not have imposed any condition and, therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside to the extent of the observations of the Court to the effect that the withdrawal shall not affect the rights determined by the trial Court between the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the averments made in this petition. A perusal of the impugned order would show that while allowing the petitioner to abandon his suit, the First Appellate Court has not imposed any condition upon the petitioner as argued and the observations have been made only to clarify the rights of the parties already determined by the trial Court, observations of the First Appellate Court are only in the nature of clarification. In the case of Satish Bhardwaj (supra), no such proposition of law has been laid down as argued by the learned counsel. Thus, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. Dismissed. November 29, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE C.R. No.1148 of 2010 (O&M) -3-