1. Defendants 2 to 5, who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased first defendant, are the revision petitioners. The plaintiff is the respondent.

2. A suit was filed in O.S.No.480 of 2000 by the plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction against the defendants.

2.1. The plaintiff originally filed I.A.No.971 of 2009 in O.S.No.480 of 2000, seeking amendment of the plaint, adding the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. That application was dismissed. Challenging the same, a Civil Revision Petition was filed in CRP No.2856 of 2010. The said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed considering the following facts and circumstances:-

(a) The suit has been filed on 24.08.2000 and written statement was filed on 03.09.2000.

(b) In the written statement, it has been specifically stated that the defendants have purchased the property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(c) The application for amendment has been filed in the year 2009 stating that the defendants have constructed a compound wall and claimed that they are in the possession of the property.

2.2. On these factual aspects, taking into account the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and finding that the application for amendment has been filed after the entire evidence was over and when it is posted for arguments, the civil revision petition was dismissed, holding the dismissal by the Court below is justified.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.69/2012, seeking permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. That petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the defendants 2 to 5 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3.1. The justifiability or otherwise of the reasons, which persuaded the court below, to allow the application for withdrawal of the suit, need to be analysed.

3.2. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of CPC which is based on public policy has been misused by the plaintiff to harass the defendant and the Court below ought not to have allowed the petition especially when the application for amendment has been rejected up to the level of the Hon'ble High Court.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petition is maintainable in view of the decision reported in (2006) 7 SCC 452 (Vidyodaya Trust and others v. R.Mohan Prasad and Others). Discussing Section 115 of the CPC, the Court held that the revision lies as against an order which would have finally disposed of the suit.

4.1. This Court is of the view that, so far as the case on hand is concerned, this revision petition is as against the order passed, permitting withdrawal of the suit. This order, permitting withdrawal, would have finally disposed of the suit and therefore, this Revision Petition is maintainable.

4.2. Next contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that, even assuming that the revision petition is not maintainable, the supervisory power of this Court, existing under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be disputed and therefore, the Revision Petition is maintainable. Supporting this proposition, the decision reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 (Shalini Shyam Shetty & another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil) is relied upon, where-under it has been held as under:-

“48. The subsequent Constitution Bench decision of this Court on Article 227 of the Constitution, rendered in the case of State of Gujarat etc. vs. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela (dead) his legal representatives and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 1481 also expressed identical views. Justice Bachawat speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench opined that the power under Article 227 cannot be fettered by State Legislature but this supervisory jurisdiction is meant to keep the subordin