C. R. No. 2376 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2376 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 08, 2010 Surjit Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Roshan Lal and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The plaintiffs alleged in the application that the plaint was not happily drafted by their previous counsel, who committed serious lapses and even failed to amend the pleadings. The plaint did not contain the detailed particulars of the suit land and tenancy of the plaintiffs. There are also ambiguities in the plaint, which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation. Some essential particulars of tenancy and technical points could not be pleaded properly, as a consequence whereof, the suit may fail. Such C. R. No. 2376 of 2010 2 technical defects cannot be cured at this stage and therefore, the plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. The suit was instituted on 04.04.2000 i.e. ten years ago. The plaintiffs moved application for permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action, at the stage of final arguments in the suit. The trial court has rightly dismissed the aforesaid application moved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contested the suit for ten years and then sought permission to withdraw it, with liberty to file fresh one so as to start a new round of litigation. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiffs pleaded in their application that their previous counsel failed to amend the pleadings. However, this was a factually incorrect and misleading averment because admittedly, the plaintiffs had earlier moved application for amendment of the plaint. The said amendment application was dismissed by the trial court and revision petition against the said order of the trial court was also dismissed by this Court. It thus becomes manifest that the plaintiffs made false and misleading averment in the instant application that their counsel failed to amend the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiffs having failed to seek amendment of the plaint, resorted to this new device by moving application to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action. By moving this application, the plaintiffs wanted to achieve what they could not by seeking amendment of the plaint. It is also significant to notice that in the application, the plaintiffs did not specify as to what is the ambiguity in the plaint and what particulars have been omitted to be pleaded in the plaint and on what technical point, the suit is likely to fail. The plaintiffs have only made vague allegations to this effect. Without specifying the defects in question, C. R. No. 2376 of 2010 3 the plaintiffs could not be granted permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial court, so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE