Civil Revision No.7606 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... C.M.No.29914-CII of 2009 Civil Revision No.7606 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : December 21, 2009 Balbir Singh alias Balli and others ... Petitioners VERSUS Krishan Lal and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Faridabad vide order dated 13.8.2009 allowed the withdrawal of the suit with a permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, subject to the condition that the plaintiff – respondent No.1 (herein referred as `the plaintiff') will pay an amount of Rs.2300/- to the defendants – petitioners and one Sharda (since deceased, whose LRs are proforma respondents No.2 to 6) (herein referred as `the defendants') for the inconvenicene caused to them. Heard. In his application for withdrawal of the suit filed under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff submitted that though he had closed his evidence on 13.3.2007 and the case was fixed for Civil Revision No.7606 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] defendants' evidence, yet he wanted to withdarw the suit on the grounds that the suit was filed without getting demarcation conducted by the concerned Revenue Authorities and, therefore, the plaintiff got the suit land demarcated through a Local Commissioner appointed by the Assistant Collector, Ballabhgarh and as per the said report, the defendants were found to be in unauthorised possession to the extent of Four Marlas only and rest of the Five Marlas of the suit land was found to have come in the periphery (`Phirni'). Therefore, the suit for possession of Nine Marlas of land was likely to fail as all the Nine Marlas are not in illegal possession of the defendants. Consequently, he sought to withdraw the previous suit with permission to file a fresh suit for possession and declaration to the extent of Four Marlas against the defendants and Five Marlas against the Gram Panchayat. The said defect is stated to be formal in nature and if the said defect is not cured, the suit is likely to fail. Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code has provided the Civil Court to grant permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, where, it is satisfied that formal defect pointed out by the party may result into dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court could also grant such permission for other sufficient grounds where justice and equity demand. Similar observations were made in case Bansi Lal Clarance vs. The United Church of Northern India Trust Association, 1995(1) Civil Court Cases 191(P&H). From the bare reading of Rule 1, it transpires that though the Clause (a) of sub-rule(3) of Order 23 envisages the withdrawal of the suit on account of some formal defect, yet Clause (b) of the said sub-rule (3) Civil Revision No.7606 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] gives vide powers to the Civil Court to allow withdrawal of the suit and grant such permission on other sufficient grounds. This provision has been inserted, so that the lis between the parties may not remain undecided, undisposed of or the plaintiff remains deprived of its valuable rights for some defect in the suit. While examining the facts of the present case, it transpires that though the plaintiff filed the suit for possession against the defendants for entire Nine Marlas, yet later on, he came to know that Five Marlas of land out of the suit land, was in possession of the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, the plaintiff has submitted that he wants to further elaborate his claim with regard to Four Marlas of land, as such, the Trial Court appears to have rightly permitted the respondent – plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The judgment delivered in case Pritam Singh vs. Smt.Gurcharan Kaur, 1971 Current Law Journal 118, is not applicable as the instant case is not one, where the plaintiff omitted to lead evidence, but the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed. Similarly, the case Kulwant Rai and others vs. Firm M/s Labhu Ram, Ram Pal, Mansa and another, 1984(2) RLR 628 is also on different set of facts and, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, no grounds to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. December 21, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE