order does not take into consideration the fact that by the judgment and decree dated 15th December 2014, the petitioner has been declared as the owner of of Gat No.1005/1B (area 65-R) and Gat No. 544/3 (area 17-R) at Mouje Limb, District Satara. He would further point out that the provisions of Order-23 Rule-1 of CPC permit the withdrawal of suit with liberty to file a fresh suit only in the event of contingencies which are enumerated in the said provision. He would further contend that in the present case, the respondent is seeking to cure their lacunae which have taken place during the trial of RCS No. 172 of 2007. He has taken this Court to the averments in the plaint and would point out that it was the specific case of the respondent that the property as described in paragraph 1B was the ancestral property and as the same came to be acquired, the alternate land was given and, as such, the same is also subject to partition. He would further submit that in the face of such pleadings, it was for the respondent to establish the said fact by leading evidence of the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer. He has pointed out that the application filed by the respondent seeking withdrawal of suit in which the specific ground is taken as that the evidence of the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer was not on record, liberty may be granted for withdrawal of the suit so that they can be made necessary parties and their evidence may be brought on record.
