IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5042 of 1996 Date of Decision : November 26, 2009 Bhupinder Kumar Kaushik ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate Mr. H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Though in his application dated 7.11.1988 filed before the learned trial Court, the plaintiff-petitioner had prayed for adjourning the suit sine die yet after filing the same, the plaintiff appeared before learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh on 19.1.1989 and stated that till the time the High Court decided C.W.P. No. 72 of 1988, he did not want to pursue his case as the relief claimed by him was identical as was in the aforementioned writ petition. In case of need, he would get the matter restored. The statement made by the plaintiff-petitioner before the learned trial Court on 19.1.1989 is reproduced here-in-below:- “My application in view of observations of the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 72 of 1988 is pending with the Department and is under consideration. Till that is decided, I do not want to pursue for this case because the relief claimed is identical in that case. In case need be I will get it restored. RO&AC SJIC. 19.1.89” Civil Revision No. 5042 of 1996 -2- In view of the aforementioned statement made by the plaintiff- petitioner, learned trial Court went ahead to dismiss the suit as withdrawn. The plaintiff cannot be now heard saying that there was some clerical mistake in the order dated 19.1.1989 passed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, required to be corrected on his application filed under Section 152 read with Section 151 C.P.C.. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) November 26,2009 JUDGE satish