The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.3761 of 2013 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit and the second and third respondents are the defendants 4 and 5 therein. The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of the trial Court made in I.A.No.17972 of 2013, dated 27.2.2014 in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking to set aside the withdrawal dismissal order, dated 29.7.2013 passed in O.S.No.3761 of 2013.

2. Short facts that arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

The first and second petitioners are the parents and the third petitioner is the brother of the first respondent. The first petitioner purchased 'A' schedule property referred to in the plaint and out of love and affection towards his sons, namely the first respondent and the third petitioner, he executed a settlement deed, dated 27.1.2012, settling 'A' schedule property to both of them and the said document was registered as Document No.194/2012. The property so settled was delivered to the settlees and they have taken possession of the same and enjoying it peacefully from the date of delivery. The settlement deed was executed out of the first petitioner's own will and desire without any compulsion and it has been specifically stated that it is irrevocable. Earlier, the first petitioner also executed Memorandum of Declaration, dated 18.1.2011 recording Hiba of 'A' schedule property to the first respondent and the third petitioner. The first and second petitioners also gifted 'B' schedule property to the first respondent and third petitioner, by way of Hiba, dated 18.1.2011, attested by a Notary Public. The offer was accepted and the possession of 'B' schedule property was taken by the first respondent and third petitioner. While that being so, the first petitioner cancelled the settlement deed, dated 27.1.2012 by way of registered cancellation deed, dated 10.5.2013 by falsely stating that the settlement deed was not acted upon. Therefore, the first respondent as plaintiff has filed the abovesaid suit for declaration to declare the said cancellation deed, dated 10.5.2013 as null and void, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from alienating, encumbering, mortgaging or dealing with the suit property. The said suit was filed on 9.7.2013. It is stated that pending suit, the first respondent also obtained an ex-parte order of interim injunction.

3. Within 20 days from the date of filing of the said suit, the first respondent filed an application in I.A.No.10671 of 2013 under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit. Based upon the said application, the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 29.7.2013, i.e. on the date of filing of the application itself, dismissed the suit as withdrawn.

4. Exactly after four months, the first respondent filed I.A.No.17972 of 2013 under Section 151 CPC praying to set aside the said order dated 29.7.2013 dismissing the suit as withdrawn. The contention of the first respondent in the said application is that he was given false promise by his father and that he was falsely induced by his mother and brother that the father would cancel the cancellation deed, dated 10.5.2013 and restore back the settlement deed, dated 27.1.2012. According to the plaintiff, those false promises were made by the defendants 1 to 3 after receiving notice in the suit and on knowing the interim injunction granted by the trial Court therein. It is his further case that the defendants 1 to 3 did not act as per their promise, and on the other hand, a criminal complaint was filed against him by his father, followed by filing a civil suit by the father in O.S.No.62