Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parsin Kaur & Ors vs Harjinder Singh & Ors on 10 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.1800 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1800 of 2014
Date of Decision:- 10.03.2014
Parsin Kaur & Ors.
.....Petitioners
Versus
Harjinder Singh & Ors.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioners. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, petitioners-plaintiffs Parsin Kaur w/o Mehar Singh and others (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1), for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing respondents-defendants Harjinder Singh son of Joginder Singh and others (for short "the defendants"), to restore the connection of electric motor, bearing account No.AP-14/1743 at its original place in the land, bearing Khasra No.13//26, situated in the revenue estate of village Bholath Garbi, District Kapurthala. Defendant No.1 contested the suit, filed the written statement (Annexure P2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have moved an application (Annexure P3) to withdraw, with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, only on the ground that the defendants have denied their ownership over the property in litigation. The contesting Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1800 of 2014 2 defendant No.1 refuted their prayer, filed his reply (Annexure P4), strongly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the facts and entire material on record, the trial Court dismissed the indicated application (Annexure P3) of the plaintiffs, by way of impugned order dated 17.1.2014 (Annexure P5).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-plaintiffs have preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the defendants have denied the ownership of plaintiffs and there is a technical defect, so, the trial court should have permitted them (plaintiffs) to withdraw with the permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, sans merit.
7. As is evident from the record that initially, the plaintiffs have filed the simple suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants to restore the pointed tubewell connection in khasra No.13//26 in the manner depicted here-in-above. That means, the plaintiffs were required to prove their ownership over the land in dispute. In case, they are able to prove their ownership, then, the rest relief of mandatory injunction would naturally follow the suit. Therefore, there is no technical defect in the frame of suit to entitle the plaintiffs to withdraw it with a Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1800 of 2014 3 permission to file afresh as contemplated under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. It is now well settled principle of law that the suit cannot be permitted to be withdrawn to file afresh on the same cause of action in a routine and casual manner. The suit can only be allowed to be withdrawn, if the case squarely falls within the ambit of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC and not otherwise.
8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P3) of plaintiffs to withdraw, with permission to file the fresh suit on the same cause of action, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P5), examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of superintendence power of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioners.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
10.3.2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2014.03.13 14:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh