Civil Revision No.246 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.246 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.7.2010 Subhash and another .....Petitioners Versus Vinay Kumar and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Surinder Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Anurag Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The plaintiff-petitioners have filed two suits i.e., earlier a suit for permanent injunction out of which the present revision petition arises and subsequently a suit for declaration claiming ownership over the suit property. It is the case of the petitioners that the description in the revenue record in respect of possession of the petitioner is incorrectly described in the suit for permanent injunction, whereas the same has been correctly described in the suit for declaration. An application for amendment in the suit for permanent injunction has been declined by Civil Revision No.246 of 2010 [2] the learned trial Court vide order dated 1.12.2009. It is the said order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. On 19.7.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought some time to examine the question of continuing with the suit for permanent injunction. Today learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the suit for permanent injunction with liberty to continue with the subsequent suit for declaration and to prove that the averments made in the suit for permanent injunction were incorrectly made. On the other hand, Shri Anurag Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, has no objection to the withdrawal of suit for permanent injunction by the petitioners, but asserts that the defendants have a right to rely on the admission made in the earlier suit for permanent injunction. In view of the said fact, the plaintiff-petitioners are permitted to withdraw the suit for permanent injunction with liberty to continue with the suit for declaration and with liberty to the parties to raise appropriate pleadings in the suit for declaration in respect of the question whether the averments made in the suit for permanent injunction amount to admission or such averments were incorrectly made. Such issue shall be decided in accordance with law in the subsequent suit for declaration. Resultantly, the present revision petition is disposed of having rendered infructuous. The learned trial Court is directed to pass a formal order of dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction with liberty as mentioned above. [HEMANT GUPTA] Civil Revision No.246 of 2010 [3] JUDGE 26-07-2010 ds