Withdrawal of a suit post-adjudication at the appellate stage requires strong justification to avoid prejudicing vested rights established by a prior decree.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the Additional District Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.dated 28.09.2024, whereby the appeal and application under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C filed by the present respondent were allowed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge , Palampur, Distt. Kangra was set-aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment against the present appellant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. on 20.06.2011.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of the house of single story, slate covered comprising of 6 rooms kitchen veranda, bath room and store which is bounded by house of Anu Sharma on north side link road to residence of MM Bhagat on the southern side residence of M M Bhagat on eastern side and on western side Nala road Ghuggar, situated at Mohal and Mouza Ghuggar, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. It was averred that house, as detailed, is exclusively owned by the plaintiff after the death of her father Rajinder Mohan and defendant No.2 has got no right, title and interest on the same. It is further averred that defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.800/- of two rooms and kitchen marked as R1, R2 and K1 in the above said house by the father of plaintiff and after the death of the father of plaintiff, defendant No.2 is tenant under the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month. It is further averred that she is residing in a rented residential accommodation, and now requires the aforesaid suit property for her own residence. Further it is averred that she requested the defendant No.1 to vacate her room but he prolonged the matter on one pretext or other. Thereafter vide legal notice dated 17.06.2010, she terminated the tenancy of defendant No.1 and despite that defendant No.1 did not vacate the house and sent a false reply. It is further averred that defendant No.2 has forcibly taken the possession of four rooms in the last week of December, 2010. It is further averred that defendant No.2 is residing with her family at Jalandhar (Punjab) for the last 5 years and at present the plaintiff has apprehension that defendant No.2 may dismantle the existing structure and will also alter the nature of the same . Further it is averred that defendant No.2 may despite having no right title or interest has taken forcible possession of the house.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising various preliminary objections with regard to valuation, maintainability and estoppel etc. It was averred that defendant No.2 became the owner in possession of the suit property after the death of her father Rajinder Mohan Bhagat on 25.2.2006 on the basis of a Will which was executed and registered on 26.09.2002 .It is averred that she got married on 29.10.2007 and after the death of her father, she became full owner of the same. She stated that defendant No.1 was inducted by her and she was receiving the rent from defendant No.1 and there is no dispute between her and defendant No.1 regarding the rent. Further it is averred that defendant No.1 is in possession of two rooms and she has claimed that in the last days of her father, she was residing with him. All the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and it was prayed that suit filed by the plaintiff may be ordered to be dismissed.

5.