Dismissed

Guddi & Anr. v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012CR/804/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging an order allowing withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one under CPC. The Bench held that the prior dismissal of an amendment application did not disqualify the withdrawal application.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed; the impugned order allowing withdrawal with permission to file fresh is upheld.

Guddi & Anr. Vs Gurcharan Singh & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.804 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHGANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.804 of 2012 Date of decision 8.2.2012

¶5

Guddi and another

¶6

................. Petitioners.

¶7

versus

¶8

Gurcharan Singh and others

¶9

................ Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI

¶11

Present :- Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

K.C.PURI, J .

¶13

Challenge in this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by Shri Baldev Singh Sodhi, learned Additional District Judge, Mansa vide which the application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short – CPC) for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh one was allowed.

¶14

Briefly stated plaintiff Gurcharan Singh filed suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 1/15 share of 144

¶15

Civil Revision No.804 of 2012

¶16

¶17

kanals 4 marlas of land as fully described in the heading of the plaint.

¶18

The case of the plaintiff in brief is that they and Data Singh defendant No.1 and Jagir Kaur daughter of Jagtar Singh were owners in possession of 1/15 share of the land measuring 144 kanals. The plaintiff vide sale deed No.584 dated 15.5.1997 have purchased 1/15^th share out of the said land measuring 144 kanals 4 marlas for a consideration of Rs.1,44,000/-. On the basis of sale deed dated 15.5.1997 mutation No.1958 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on 24.5.19097.

¶19

The defendants filed written statement admitting the fact that Data Ram Jagir Kaur were the owners of 144 kanls 4 marlas but the factum of sale in favour of the plaintiff was denied. The trial Court after adjudicating the matter dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2010.

¶20

Aggrieved against the above said judgment and decree the plaintiffs filed the First Appeal. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was disallowed vide order dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the First Appellate Court. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action. That application was resisted by the present defendants/petitioners. The learned Court vide impugned order dated 20.7.2011 allowed the application.

¶21

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have

¶23

Civil Revision No.804 of 2012

¶24

¶25

examined the record.

¶26

The main stress of the counsel for the petitioner is that similar application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed and as such the application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC cannot be allowed.

¶27

The arguments looks attractive but is without any legal force. 10. The objection of the petitioner raised before the trial Court is simply that since the joint land has been partitioned and as such the the suit of the venders of plaintiff in respect of joint land cannot be decreed, So, there is a formal defect in the present case as the land which has been fallen to the share of vendor has not been included. So, in these circumstances, the decision on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not effect the rights of the plaintiff. The order has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC.

¶28

Consequently, no case is made out for interference the petition

¶29

is dismissed.

¶30

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict

¶31

compliance.

¶32

( K.C. PURI ) JUDGE

¶33

February 08, 2012 sv

Guddi & Anr. v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddi & Anr. v. Gurcharan Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharambir & Ors. Vs Pardeep & Ors.

Rakesh and Others Vs Jagdish etc.

Haryana State through Collector, Jind, Distt. Jind Vs Promila W/O Balkrishan

Panna Datt Gautam Vs Subhash and Ors.

M/S Singla Relaters Ltd. Vs Arbitrator Mr. Justice N.K. Kapoor (Retd) and Anr.

Union of India Vs Mangal Singh