BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision. No l^ /2011 fii! APPLICANT DEFENDANT N0. 1 ^' ,•'•' ./• ^^,y-^ ^zy^ ^!^ ..^ ^py.^°' ^^y <?^< NON-APPLICANTS i1 2. .Deepak Kumar Jha s/o Late Sunil Kumar Jha, aged about 40 years, r/o Turi Hatri Purana Basti, Sakshminarayan Ward, Raipur (C.G.) Working Address - Assistant Grade II, Clerk, office 6f the District Education Officer, Pension Bada, Raipur, through District Education Officer, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Archana Jha w/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Jha, aged about 44 years, r/o Block 55-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil &r-Distnct Durg, C.G. PLAINTIFF Nayab Tahsildar, Up Tahsil Office, Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) DEFENDANT N0. 2 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Durg(C.G-) DEFENDANT N0. 3 CIVIL REVISION U/S. 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE vi^^^^^^^S!^^St HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 15 of201 1 APPLICANT : DeepakKumarJha DEFENDAJNT No. 1 Versus NON-APPLICANTS : Smt. Archana Jha & others CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri AK Prasad, Adyocate for the applicant. Shri RR Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 03.02.2011) 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 23.12.2010, passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Patan, Distt. Durg, in Civil SuitNo. 9-A/2010, whereby the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 1 1 (D) read with Section 151 ofCPC has been dismissed, is under assail in the instant petition. According to the applicant, earliei- Civil Suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 in the court of Civil Jiidge, Class II, Durg. The applicant herein objected that the suit property is situated in village Urla, Teh. Patan, Ifaerefore, Durg Civil Court has nojurisdiction to hear the matter. An application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC was filed by .the respondent for withdrawal ofthe suit on the ground that the Durg Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only Patan Civil Coyrt hasjurisdiction to try the suit. The court.permitted him for withdrawal ofthe suit on the ground that since the property in dispute is situated in village Urla, Teh. Patan, therefore Civil Court, Patan has jurisdiction to hear the suit, and ftereafter, the instant suit has been filed by the respondent before the Patan Civil Court. The applicant appeared in the case and an objection has been raised again by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC on the ground that suit has been withdrawn by the plaintifF without pennission of the trial court, granting liberty to institute a fresh suit, and therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable. It was further contended that the number of defendants are dififerent in both the suits. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the order impugned, I do not find and substance in the revision. A bare perusal of the order passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Durg, would reveal, having found, the court has no jurisdiction to tiy the suit, permitted the plaintiffs for withdrawal of the suit. A court which has no jurisdiction in respect of a suit cannot permit its withdrawal under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC. Such withdrawal must be regarded as an order retuming of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 ofCPC. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu