IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 243 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.09.2011 Ved Parkash ... Petitioner Versus The Gram Panchayat Trilokpur … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 11.3.2011 in a review petition filed by the petitioner. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the review petition before the learned District Judge are that an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. was pending before the learned District Judge and on 12.7.2010 a statement was made by the petitioner that in case demarcation report goes against him and it is found that construction is being made in Khasra Numbers 667/375 of Abadi Deh, he will take 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 back the suit and it be treated as dismissed. Accordingly, the learned District Judge vide his order dated 12.7.2010 not only dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., but also dismissed the suit pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nahan. 5. A review petition was filed before the learned District Judge, who vide his impugned order dismissed the same. It is clear that the dispute pending before the learned District Judge was in regard to the filing of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the statement made by the petitioner’s counsel in that proceedings may be relevant for disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. only, but consequently, the suit cannot be said to be liable to be dismissed, which was pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nahan, reason being that the petitioner has agreed to take back the case and submitted that it be treated as dismissed and not an unequivocal statement that it be dismissed accordingly. The said statement should not have been relating to the case in question, but it should only have relevance to the appeal preferred by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. Therefore, insofar as the order dismissing the appeal is concerned, it calls for no interference, but insofar as the matter pertaining to the suit is concerned, the order passed that the suit is also dismissed, is liable to be set aside, since the parties are at liberty to agitate and press their claims before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nahan, where the suit was pending. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to this extent and the order passed dismissing the civil suit is set aside. The case shall go 3 back to the learned trial Court, who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 6. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to put up their appearance before the learned trial Court on 24th October, 2011. A copy of the judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Record be returned. ( V.K. Ahuja ), September 22, 2011 Judge (BSS)