Disposed¶24

Anil Kumar and Another v. Tilak Raj

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Apr 2026CR/123/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CR No. 123 of 2024; Justice Romesh Verma; decided 06.04.2026; withdrawal of suit; Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC; permission to file suit afresh; withdrawal at final-argument stage; cost imposed on plaintiff for withdrawal; enhancement of cost Rs.15,000 to Rs.25,000; Senior Civil Judge Court No.1 Amb; suit of 2011 for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction/demolition; revision dismissed/disposed with no interference in trial court order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; the trial Court's order dated 04.10.2023 permitting withdrawal of the suit was upheld (no interference), subject to the respondent/plaintiff paying enhanced cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners within four weeks. ¶24

Anil Kumar and Another Vs Tilak Raj — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court erred in allowing the plaintiff's application for withdrawal of the suit at the stage when the case was fixed for final arguments and was at the fag end.

¶19

Court's answer

The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court allowing withdrawal of the suit does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial Court committed no error in allowing the withdrawal, and in the opinion of this Court no interference is required in the said order.

¶21

Key takeaways

In order to maintain balance between the parties, the cost of Rs.15000/- imposed for withdrawal of the suit is increased to Rs.25,000/-.ratio¶21
The trial Court's order dated 04.10.2023 shall remain applicable subject to the respondent paying cost of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners within four weeks.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CR No. 123 of 2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Romesh Verma, J., decision dated 06.04.2026): Defendants-petitioners challenged the order dated 04.10.2023 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, allowing the plaintiff's application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC to withdraw his 2011 suit for permanent prohibitory injunction (with a prayer for mandatory injunction/demolition of superstructure) with liberty to file afresh, on the ground that the case was fixed for final arguments and at the fag end. Held: the impugned order suffers from no infirmity; the trial Court committed no error and no interference was required. However, to maintain balance between the parties, the withdrawal cost of Rs.15,000/- was increased to Rs.25,000/-, payable by the respondent/plaintiff to the petitioners within four weeks, failing which the trial Court's order would not stand made applicable. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CR No. 123 of 2024 Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 Anil Kumar & anr ...Petitioners Versus Tilak Raj ...Respondent

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner : Mr. Mr.Gurinder Singh, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondents : Mr.Dhiraj Kumar Vashisht, Advocate.

¶9

Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

¶10

The present petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 Amb, dated 04.10.2023, whereby an application 0led by the plainti1 for the withdrawal of the suit under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) C.P.C has been allowed.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that the plainti1/respondent has 0led a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, raising any sort of construction, by taking forcible possession, by ousting the plainti1, and by uprooting the

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

boundaries over the land bearing Khewat No. 320 min,322, Khatoni Nos. 628,630, khasra Nos.1324, 1324/1 and 1322, kita 3 as entered in jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 and further with a prayer of mandatory injunction by way of demolition of super structure.

¶15

Admittedly, the suit was 0led by the plainti1 in the year 2011 and the same was duly contested by the present petitioners/defendants by 0ling a detailed written statement on 07.05.2011.

¶16

The plainti1-respondent on 09.06.2023 0led an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) C.P.C for the withdrawal of the suit with liberty to 0le it a fresh in the interest of justice.The application was duly resisted by the present petitioners/defendants by submitting that the defendants have been dragged by the plainti1 in an uncalled-for litigation for the last more than 13-15 years, therefore, at this stage, the plainti1/respondent cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit.

¶17

The aforesaid application came up for consideration before the learned trial Court on 04.10.2023, on which date same was allowed and the plainti1/respondent was permitted to withdraw the suit subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-.

¶18

¶19

Feeling dissatis0ed, the defendants/petitioners have approached this Court by 0ling the instant petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was 0xed for the 0nal arguments and the case was at the fag end, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application for withdrawal of the suit.

¶20

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that since there was a formal defect in the case in hand, therefore, permission has been rightly granted by the learned trial Court.

¶21

The impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court does not su1er from any in0rmity. The Court below has allowed the prayer of the present respondent/plainti1 for the withdrawal of the suit and cost of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed upon the respondent/plainti1. The learned trial Court has committed no error and in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required in the said order. However, in order to maintain balance between the parties, it will be desirable in the interest of justice that the cost of Rs.15000/- is increased to Rs.25,000/-. It is ordered that the order as passed by the learned trial Court dated 04.10.2023, shall be made applicable

¶22

¶23

subject to the respondent is paying cost of Rs.25,000/- to the present petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶24