RSA No.3828 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3828 of 2008 Date of decision: September 20, 2011. Bal Shiksha Samiti Kaithal (Regd.) ... Appellant(s) v. Dr. Ram Kirti Garg ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri S.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Plaintiff having lost in two rounds of litigation, has preferred the present regular second appeal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendant be restrained from permanently interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the portion Mark A-1, A, B, C, D either by encroachment or in any other manner. Further a decree for mandatory injunction was sought to re-fix the fence along with portion Mark AB. It is not disputed that in para 5 of the plaint, fence has been described as baar, i.e., hedge. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the Local Commissioner had carried the demarcation and as per the demarcation, plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the suit land. The trial court had very rightly formulated a question, as to whether RSA No.3828 of 2008 -: 2 :- the disputed property is a part of khasra No.415 or 419. The Local Commissioner had conducted demarcation on the spot to determine whether the disputed property is part of khasra No.419/1 or not. The Local Commissioner in categoric terms has reported that the disputed property is part of khasra No.419/1. The trial court rejected all the objections raised to ignore the report of the Local Commissioner. The lower appellate court has held as under:- “7. ... Order 7 Rule 3 CPC provides that where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. The very purpose of this provision of law that the property regarding which ultimately the civil court will pass a decree must be identifiable and whenever Order 7 Rule 3 CPC is violated and particulars are absent in a plaint, the plaint shall be rejected and ought not to have been numbered/registered as has been held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ambanna Vs. Ghanteappa, as reported in AIR 1999 421. The ratio of the above said judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. It is the conceded case of the parties that the suit property is having khasra numbers as during the trial of the case, the plaintiff tried to lead the court to believe that the school property is situated in khasra nuber 415, whereas the property purchased by the respondent is in khasra No.419/1, RSA No.3828 of 2008 -: 3 :- but still no trouble was ever taken by the plaintiff-appellant to describe the property properly in the present case and this court is afraid that in the absence of necessary particulars finding mention in the plaint, ultimately no effective decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. ...” Aggrieved against the above said findings of the court, appellant has filed the instant appeal. Counsel for the appellant states that he will not raise any other argument but pray to this Court that since he is also convinced that the plaint filed by the appellant-plaintiff was vague, it should have been rejected on this score alone to enable him to approach the court again to prove his ownership and possession over the disputed property. Thus, he be permitted to withdraw the instant suit with a liberty to file a fresh one if any cause of action survives. Shri S.D. Bansal, Counsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that he has no objection in case this Court permits the appellant- plaintiff to withdraw the plaint and file a fresh suit if any cause of action is made out. In view of the very fair stand taken by Counsel for the respondent, present appeal is disposed of by permitting the appellant to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one in consonance with the provisions of law, in case he is able to make out a case, that, cause of action has or had accrued to him. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 20, 2011. Judge kadyan