IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No. 101 of 2010. Decided on 24.11.2010. Govind Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- Mool Raj and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Yoginder Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): This revision petition has been instituted against the order dated 05.05.2010, passed by the learned A.D.J./F.T.C., Dharamshala in C.M.A. No. 47-N/10 in C.M. Appeal No. 3- N/2008. 2. The respondent-plaintiff, Mool Raj (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant” for convenience sake) and his family members from forcibly occupying the shop or dispossessing the plaintiff from using his own stairs or interfering into peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiffs, comprised in Khara No. 81 min (59 in red), Khatauni No. 96 min, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - Khasra No. 275, land measuring 0-00-21HM, Gair Mumkin Dukan, situated in Mahal & Mauza Jassur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. 4. Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant. The application was decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nurpur, District Kangra (H.P.) on 12.11.2007. Plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the order dated 12.11.2007 before the learned ADJ/FTC, Dharamshala. Plaintiff filed an application for withdrawal of the suit and the same was decided by the learned ADJ/GTC, Dharamshala in CMA No. 47- N/10 in C.M.A. No. 3/N/2008 on 05.05.2010. 5. According to Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the learned ADJ/FTC, dated 05.05.2010 is without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Yoginder Singh Rathore, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have supported the order dated 05.05.2010. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 8. Plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction, as noticed hereinabove. The suit was contested by the defendant. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the order dated 12.11.2007. However, the application was preferred by the plaintiff bearing C.M.A. No. 47-N/10 in C.M. Appeal No. 3- N/2008 for the withdrawal of the suit. The application was - 3 - contested by the defendant. The learned ADJ/FTC, Dharamshala has allowed the application and, consequently, the civil suit bearing No. 10 of 2005 was permitted to be withdrawn. The withdrawal of the suit is simplicitor. The plaintiffs have not sought liberty to institute any fresh suit on the same or similar cause of action. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned ADJ/FTC, Dharamshala. The learned ADJ/FTC has protected the rights of the defendant by holding that the Counter Claim No. 33 of 2005 would continue. However, the Court is of the considered view that the learned ADJ/FTC, Dharamshala should have awarded reasonable cost to the defendant. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of by holding that there is neither any illegality nor procedural impropriety in the order dated 05.05.2010, passed in C.M.A. No. 47-N/10 filed in C.M. Appeal No. 3-N/10. However, the defendant is held entitled to costs of `5000/- to be paid by the plaintiff, within a period of one month from today. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 24, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -