IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7361 of 2004. Gheesa son of Shri Nathu & Others VERSUS Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Others Date Of Order ::: 05/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. R.K. Mathur, Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The defendant/petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 22.06.2004 (Annexure-7) passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and also the order dated 03.08.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mundawar, District Alwar. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of disputed land before the Assistant Collector, Mundawar and during the pendency of that suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mundawar vide its order dated 03.08.2002 allowed the application and granted permission to file afresh suit. The said order was challenged by the defendants by way of revision petition before the Revenue Board, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.06.2004. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below have committed an illegality in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 23 Rule 1, C.P.C. He further submits that under the garb of permission to file a fresh suit the plaintiffs will change the nature of the suit and the rights of defendants will be prejudiced. He placed reliance on Deena (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. Bharat Singh (Dead) through LRS.& Another, reported in (2002) 6 S.C.C. Page 336. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to how the said judgment is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgments passed by the S.D.O. as well as Revenue Board in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. The Sub Divisional Officer as well as Revenue Board, both have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in detail and thereafter granted permission to file afresh suit to the plaintiff while allowing their application under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C. The case of the defendant/petitioner is not going to be prejudiced in any manner for a simple reason that they will be at liberty to raise all points, including legal point relating to the limitation in the written statements and they will be at liberty to contest the fresh suit on facts and law, both. I do not find any legal or factual error in both the judgments passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as Revenue Board so as to interfere in the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/