Full Judgment
D.R. Deshmukh, J.
1. Invoking the civil revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth 'the Code') the applicants/plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 24-3-2008 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2003, whereby the application of the applicants/plaintiffs under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code dated 12-3-2008 seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit was dismissed.
2. It is not disputed that in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2003 evidence of the parties has not begun.
3. Brief facts are that the applicants/plaintiffs had instituted the aforesaid suit on 12-11-2003 against the non-applicants/defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction of Saw Mill over the suit land. After the death of the plaintiff Laxmi Chand Gupta, the applicants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Chand Gupta, were substituted. The suit was founded on the averments that Laxmi Chand Gupta is the adopted son of Late Motilal Gupta and on the basis of a registered Will dated 20-6-1970 executed by Motilal Gupta is the sole title-holder of the suit land, i.e., plot No. 1053/1 area 2.19 acres situated in Deviganj Road, Vijay Marg, Kedarpur, Ambikapur. It was pleaded that on 11-11-2003, the defendants had, with an intent to establish a Saw Mill started digging the plinth on the suit land in the portion marked with green in the map annexed to the plaint. In view of this unauthorised the illegal act of the defendants, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so was prayed for.
4. The defendants denying the averments of the plaintiff in toto resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the averment that the Saw Mill of the applicants/plaintiffs was established on the suit land in the year 1948. Father of the non-applicants Late Kashichand Gupta and Late Satyanarayan Gupta had title to the suit land by birth. It was further pleaded that in an earlier suit Civil Suit No. 2-A/98 the plaintiff had admitted that he neither had title nor possession over the suit land. It was specifically denied that on 11-11-2003 the defendants had started digging work on the suit land to establish a Saw Mill.
5. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 9-A/2003, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code filed by the plaintiff for incorporating the relief of mandatory injunction in the plaint against the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position by removing the Saw Mill. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge on 10-10-2007 by order (Annexure P-7).
6. On 12-3-2008 an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein it was stated as under:
3 ;g fd oknhx.k ds }kjk] izfroknhx.k dks oknHkwfe dks okn izLrqfr fnukad dh fLFkfr esa ykus gsrq vkKkid fu'ks/kkKk vkns'k iznku djus ckor~ vkosnu Hkh ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk fujLr dj fn;k x;k g SA
4 ;g fd okn ds yEcudky esa izfroknhx.k ds }kjk cyiwoZd oknHkwfe dk dCtk ysdj ml ij vkjk e'khu dk lapkyu djus ls oknHkwfe ,oa okn ds Lo:i esa ifjorZu gks x;k gS] ftlls okn esa izk:fid =qfV;ka mRiUu gks x;h gS
5 ;g fd mijksDr =qfV;ka ds dkj.k oknhx.k dk okn foQy gksus dh iw.kZ laHkkouk gS] bl dkj.k oknhx.k leku okn fo'k; (subject matter of instituted suit) ij uohu okn iqu% izLrqr djus dh NwV ds lkFk viuk okn okil ysuk pkgrs gS] ftl gsrq mUgs vuqefr iznku djuk U;k;ksfpr gS] vU;Fkk oknhx.k dks viw.khZ; {kfr gksxh
vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd] oknhx.k dks leku okn dkj.k (subject matter of instituted suit) ij uohu okn izLrqr djus dh NwV ds lkFk yafcr O;ogkj okn dz- 9&,@03 okil fy;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku djus dh d`ik djsa
An affidavit was also filed by the applicant No. 4, Shankar Lal in support of the application. In Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit, it was stated as under:
7 eS 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa izfroknhx.k ds }kjk oknHkwfe o mlds vklikl dh vU; Hkwfe ,oa [k-iz- 1053@2 ij oknds yEcudky esa dCtk dj fy;s tkus ls oknhx.k ,oa [k-u- 1053@2 ds Lokeh jkefuokl xqIrk la;qDr :i ls mDr leLr Hkwfe;ksa ds dCtk izkfIr gsrq izfroknhx.k ds fo:) okn izLrqr djuk pkgrs g SA bl izdkj ls u;s okn esa oknHkwfe o i{kdkj nksuks gh ifjofrZr gks tk;sxs A ftlls bl okn esa la'kks/ku ds ek/;e ls lekfo'V djuk laHko ugh g SA
8 eS 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd mDr fLFkfr esa orZeku yafcr okn dks okil ysdj leku okn dkj.k ij oknHkwfe ds rFkk mDr Hkwfe;ksa ds laca/k esa rFkk okn izLrqr djus dh vuqefr iznku djus ls oknHkwfe dk o mlds yxh vu; Hkwfe;ksa dk izfroknhx.k ls dCtk ysus gsrq ,d gh okn esa lkFk&lkFk; fujkdj.k gks tk,xk] ftlls okn dh ckgqY;rk ugh gksxh] rFkk izfroknhx.k dks Hkh {kfr ugh gksxhA
g- 'kiFkxzfgrk
'kadj yky xqIrk
7. The application was resisted by the non-applicants on the ground that the essential conditions required for grant of permission for withdrawing form the suit under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code were not satisfied. It was stated in Paragraph 5 as under:
5- ;g fd vkosnui= dh dafMdk 5 esa of.kZr rF; fd oknhx.k dk okn izk:fir =qfVxzLr gks x;k gS] lR; u gksus ds dkj.k badkj gS] O;-iz- lafgrk ds vkns'k 23 fu;e 1 esa 'kCn izk:fir =qfV dks Hkys Hkh ifjHkkf'kr ugh fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq fofHkUu U;kf;d n`'Vkar esa izk:fir =qfV dh tks O;k[;k dh xbZ gS] ml rjg dh dksbZ izk:fid =qfV oknhx.k ds O;ogkj okn esa ugh gS] bruk gh ugh ;fn okLro esa oknhx.k ds okn i= esa dksbZ izk:fid =qfV gksrh rks oknhx.k ,slh izk:fid =qfV dk mYys[k vius vkosnu esa vo'; djrsA
It was reiterated that the Saw Mill of the defendants was established on the suit land since 1947-48. In Paragraph 4 of the reply, it was stated as under:
4- ;g fd vkosnui= dh dafM+dk 4 esa of.kZr rF; fd izfroknhx.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k bl nkok ds vk;kstu ds mijkUr cyiwoZd dCtk ysdj fdlh uohu vkjk fey dh LFkkiuk fd, gS] lR; u gksus ds dkj.k badkj gS] bl lEcU/k esa izfroknhx.k dk Li'V fou; gS fd izfroknhx.k nl ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk tSls gh bl ckr dh lwpuk izkIr fd;s fnukad 17&11&03 dks gh bl ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks fof/kor lwpuk ns fn, fd muds }kjk dksbZ uohu vkjk fey dh LFkkiuk ugh dh tk jgh gS] cfYd og 1947&48 ls gh LFkkfir gS] dh iqf'V ou ifj{ks=kf/kdkjh] vfEcdkiqj }kjk fo-O;-ok- dz- 55@03 eas izLrqr izfrosnu esa Hkh dh xbZ g SA
8. The learned District Judge dismissed the application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that neither there was any formal defect in the suit nor any justification for withdrawal of the suit. It was further mentioned that the suit was pending since 2003. On 10-10-2007, while rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code filed by the plaintiffs, the Court had observed that by the amendment sought it was clear that the defendants were in possession of the suit land since 8-12-2003 and, therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to seek the relief of possession after removal of the Saw Mill as a consequential relief. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge rejected the application while observing that the plaintiffs were at liberty to file an application for amendment seeking the relief of possession of the suit land. On this premise, the learned District Judge dismissed the application.
9. Assailing the impugned order, it was argued by Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs that the learned District Judge erred in law in refusing to grant leave to withdraw the suit on the grounds as aforesaid. It was submitted that order of rejection clearly demonstrates failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Court below and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on E.M. Mani v. Tata Tea Ltd., Munnar and Ors. AIR 2006 (Ker.) 757, Brajamohan Sabato v. Sarojini Panigrahi and Anr. : AIR1975 Ori39 and Damyanti Rani Bakshi v. Maharaj Kumar Mehta : AIR2004 Delhi422 .
10. On the other hand, Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the non-applicants/defendants has argued in support of the impugned order. Reliance was placed on K.S. Bhoopathy and Ors. v. Kokila and Ors. : (2000)5SCC458 , Uma Devi and Anr. v. Nagarpalika, Begamgunj and Ors. 1999 (2) MPJR 487, Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Ramadevi Shivhare and Anr. : 2008(1)MPHT83 and Durga Prasad and Ors. v. Laxminarayan deceased through L.Rs. : 2008(3)MPHT233 .
11. Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code makes provisions for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. Relevant portions of the provision are extracted hereunder: