1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
CIVIL REVISION No.60 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
TRILOCHANSINGH S/O AMRIKSINGH KHANUJA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
271, AB ROAD DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SAMEER ANANT ATHAWALE - ADVOCATE)
AND
INDRAJEET KAUR W/O BHUPENDRASINGH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
124, SADASHIV NAGAR, CIVIL LINES DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. MEENA CHAPEKAR - ADVOCATE)
(PASSED ON 21/12/2022)
1.
This Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff against the
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 26-12-2022
15:40:58
Signature Not Verified
2
order dated 23.01.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.88-A/2015 by the
VIth Civil Judge, Class-I, District Dewas whereby his application
under Order 23 Rule 1 and 3 of the CPC for withdrawal of the suit
with liberty to file a fresh suit has been rejected.
2.
The facts of the case are that plaintiff instituted an action on or
about 14.09.2015 against the defendant for declaration of his half
share in the suit lands, for mandatory injunction directing the
defendant to remove his construction from over his share in the suit
land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
making any construction in the future or alienating the suit land in
any manner. Upon service of summons upon her the defendant has
contested the plaintiff's claim by filing her written statement on
21.06.2016.
3.
During course of proceedings before the trial Court the plaintiff
filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 and 3 of the CPC for
withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same
facts and cause of action. The plaintiff submitted that only affidavits
in evidence of witnesses have been filed and their cross-examination
has not begun as yet and that pleadings in the plaint have not been
made properly since plaintiff was not aware of the legal requirements
hence could not give the entire information to his counsel at the time
of filing of the suit. Certain relevant documents which throw a great
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 26-12-2022
15:40:58
Signature Not Verified
3
deal of light on the dispute also could not be filed because plaintiff
could not understand their relavance and importance. The pleadings
as regards the documents filed along with the plaint have also not
been made. For correcting the pleadings the plaintiff has made
applications from time to time for amendment of the plaint which
have been rejected. Certain documents filed subsequently by plaintiff
have also not been taken on record. It was hence submitted that due
to absence of necessary pleadings and the documents the suit is
bound to fail hence plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit with
liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action upon
making the relevant pleadings and filing necessary documents. The
defendant contested the application by filing reply to the same. The
application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the
grounds as have been taken by the plaintiff in the application are not
sufficient for permitting withdrawal of the suit and granting liberty to
him as prayed for.
4.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court has
committed a gross error of law in rejecting the application filed by
the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not aware of the legal requirements
and procedures and could not make necessary pleadings in the plaint
at the time of its filing and also could not bring on record the
documents relevant for the case. Though certain documents have
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 26-12-2022
15:40:58
Signature Not Verified
4
been filed along with the plaint but pleadings in that regard have not
been made. Subsequent applications filed by plaintiff for amendment
of the plaint and for taking additional documents on record have been
rejected. The suit is hence likely to fail on account of such absence of
pledings and documents hence there was sufficient ground for
allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a
fresh suit as prayed for. Reliance has been placed by him on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Rajendran and
Another V/s. Annasamy Pandian (dead) through LRs
Karthyayani Natchiar (2017) 5 SCC 63.
5.
Per contra learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that
the suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2015. Since then
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.