Civil Revision No.6331 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4465-CII of 2009 Civil Revision No.6331 of 2008 Date of Decision:17.03.2009 Gurmail Singh & Ors. ....petitioners Versus Surjit Kaur & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Rahul Chhatwal,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.4465-CII of 2009 Civil Miscellaneous application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Order dated 17.02.2009 is recalled and the revision is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of. Civil Revision No.6331 of 2008 This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the order dated 09.09.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Faridkot, whereby application filed by the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh one, has been dismissed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the suit was filed in the trial Court, the plaintiffs were neither aware of the status of the living respondents and nor about their particulars. The suit was filed on the basis of revenue record and therefore the learned Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Faridkot has erred at law while not granting the permission to the petitioners to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action. Civil Revision No.6331 of 2008 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. I find that in this case the suit was filed in the year 2005. The defendants filed written statement-cum-counter claim on 22.03.2006, wherein they took specific stand about the non-existence of persons arrayed as defendants and thereafter plaintiffs-petitioners filed replication-cum-written statement to the counter-claim on 19.07.2006 denying the averments of the written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the plaintiffs completed their evidence and the suit was at the stage of the defendants' evidence when the present application was moved by the plaintiffs. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the trial Court rejected the application. Even from the perusal of the civil revision filed before this Court, I find that the petitioners have not stated the complete facts of the case as no averment has been made by the petitioners in the case that in the written statement filed by the defendants they had taken the specific objection with regard to the non-existence of the persons arrayed as defendants and still the petitioners continued with the case and thereafter issues were framed and petitioners also completed their evidence and the case was fixed for defendants' evidence when the instant application was made and simply averred that the formal defect can be rectified by allowing the petitioners to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The petitioners have not come to the Court with their hands clean. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 17.03.2009 neenu