1. The present review application is directed against the order dated 27.12.2017 passed in the Civil Revision Application No. 446 of 2017.

2. The case in brief is that the respondent no. 1 herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 2016 seeking partition and permanent injunction mainly on the premise that she has been gifted half of undivided share in Plot No. 158 admeasuring 995 sq. meters situated in the land bearing Survey/Block No. 13, 15 and 16 of the respondent no. 3 society situated at Village Palodiya, District :- Gandhinagar.

3. Upon receipt of the summons of the suit proceeding, it appears that by raising several issues, written statement has been filed at Exh. 23 in which one of the issue which has been raised is that by virtue of lavad suit no. 4447 of 2013 having been withdrawn unconditionally by withdrawal pursis at Exh. 36 from the file of learned Board of Nominees of Ahmedabad, the present suit is not maintainable and on this premise even on application at Exh. 26 appears to have been preferred by the present applicant under Rule 7 Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application preferred by the present applicant has been replied at a relevant point of time at Exh. 33 and based upon by-parte hearing, application at Exh. 26 came to be rejected vide order dated 23.09.2017, against which original Civil Revision Application No. 446 of 2017 was filed by the applicant. The said Civil Revision Application came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 27.12.2017 whereby, the Court has not accepted the Revision Application and notice was discharged. However, with a view to allow the applicant to avail of an appropriate remedy, for a period of four weeks the order passed in Revision Application was suspended. With these background, the Misc. Civil Application came to be filed in the month of February, 2018.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Brijesh Trivedi appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently contended that since the earlier lavad suit was unconditionally withdrawn, the present suit with respect to same property in the present form is not maintainable and has submitted that an apparent error is committed by the Court. It has further been contended that if the withdrawal of the suit was unconditional, the same cannot be said to be conditional by any stretch of imagination and the purported withdrawal of the suit additionally would not require the learned Court to examine whether such permission to be granted in which circumstance and as such the same cannot be contended unless and until the condition stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied and this construction of provision has not been apparently appreciated while disposing of the Revision Application. It has further been contended that background of the facts of such withdrawal would not warrant any undue sympathy to the opponent and it has been held by catana of decisions that misplaced sympathy has no room in deciding the litigation. It has further been contended by raising specifically ground 'C' that the order is not passed in a just and proper manner. However, the main plank of argument is centering around principle underline under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by reiterating that since unconditional withdrawal has taken place on lavad suit, the present suit is not maintainable at all.

5. To substantiate the contention, few decisions are relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant which suggest that this is a fit case in which the order is required to be reviewed. The said decisions are :-

(a) Dhanjibhai Bhanabhai @ Bhanjibhai Maru vs. State of Gujarat delivered in Misc. Civil Application No. 01 of 2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 9902 of 2015;

(b) Babubhai Ishwarlal Patel vs. Pachchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. and Ors. delivered in Misc. Civil Application No. 491 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2934 of 2008 with Mi