( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2009 Shakeelabee w/o Mohammad Murtja and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Jaitunbee w/o Syed Yusuf and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. ..... WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2008 Shakeelabee w/o Mohammad Murtja and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Jaitunbee w/o Syed Yusuf and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st August, 2009] ( 2 ) PER COURT : 1. Both the writ petition and the revision application are being disposed of together in as much as they arise out of common order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Georai on applications filed by the petitioners and the respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions raised in the suit which was filed before the learned Civil Judge vide Regular Civil Suit No. 89/2007. Suffice it to say that the respondents No. 1to 4 filed the suit for setting aside decree rendered in earlier suit bearing R.C.S.No. 171/2006 and for injunction restraining the present petitioners from alienating the suit properties which are part and parcel of survey No. 106 and survey No. 107, situated at village Suralegaon, Tq. Georai. The petitioners who re the original defendants No. 2 and 3 filed an application Vide Exh-56 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order- VII Rule-11 of the Civil Procedure Code. They submitted that no cause of action was spelt out from the pleadings ( 3 ) of the respondents No. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. They contended that the suit was not maintainable on account of legal embargo as the same was not framed appropriately. The respondents No. 1 to 4 realized the errors committed while drafting of the suit and, therefore, they filed separate application (Exh-65) seeking leave to withdraw the suit with permission to file appropriate suit. The learned Civil Judge held that such permission could be granted to the respondents in order to facilitate them to redraft the plaint appropriately and to seek the relief of partition which they wanted to ventilate. Therefore, their application filed under Order-XXIII Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed whereas that of the petitioners/original defendants No. 2 and 3 came to be dismissed. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that there was no scope to permit withdrawal of the suit, particularly, on permission to file afresh suit. It is contended that the withdrawal of the suit could not be ( 4 ) ordered when there was no material to infer that the suit would fail by reason of some formal defect. The learned counsel would point out that the application itself shows that there was a major defect in the drafting of the suit and the mistake was not formal. He would submit that the petitioners have been deprived of the relief which they could have secured on account of rejection of the plaint. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the import of the impugned common order, it is manifestly clear that the learned Civil Judge considered sub-rule (3) (b) of Order-XXIII Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code while allowing withdrawal of the suit. It is quite clear that the real cause of action was mired under the confusion created due to the improper and loosely worded pleadings of the respondents No. 1to 4. They themselves stated in the application that their pleadings were not proper and were loosely worded. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that sometimes pleadings are improperly worded and particularly, in Muffasil area, certain concession is ( 5 ) required to be given to the improperly worded pleadings. So, when the respondents No. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) themselves realized that their pleadings were not proper, it is but natural that they were unsure of going ahead with the trial on basis of such pleadings. It is common ground of both the parties, therefore, that the cause of action was hidden in the improperly worded pleadings and could not be properly ferreted out. The petitioners themselves pointed out such mistakes and, therefore, the respondents strategically sought withdrawal of the suit. Now, the petitioners cannot claim that the pleadings could have been re-drafted or amended and the suit should have been continued or dismissed. There appears no substantial error committed by the learned Civil Judge while allowing withdrawal of the suit. The rejection of the application filed by the petitioners is the necessary corollary to the permission granted for withdrawal of the suit and, therefore, no much illegality has been done while deciding the applications under the common order in question. Consequently, both the writ petition and the revision application are dismissed. ( 6 ) 5. In view of dismissal of the writ petition and the revision application, the civil application No. 3297/2009 (in writ petition No. 378/2009) does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP378-09-CRA19-08