Withdrawal of a suit without permission bars subsequent litigations over the same subject matter as per procedural rules.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellant/plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1997 of the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which erroneously reversed the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 09.01.1995 of the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Hoshiarpur, respectfully invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 , through the present Regular Second Appeal (here- in-after to be referred as “RSA”). The appellant seeks restoration of the decree rightly rendered by the Trial Court and appropriate relief for the substantial injustice suffered.

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are palpably perverse, premised on fundamental errors of law and a manifestly flawed appraisal of evidence, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellant earnestly prays for this Court’s intervention to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the lawful, well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. For clarity and precision in the ensuing discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants, consistent with their designation before the learned Trial Court. The material and salient facts giving rise to the institution of the present proceedings are summarized as follows:-

“The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the order dated 2.2.1990 of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, sanctioning Mutation No. 2190 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, is illegal, void, and infringing upon his ownership rights. Ganda Singh, the plaintiff’s uncle and co-purchaser of the 35 kanals 8 marlas of land and a house, was unmarried and lived with the plaintiff until his death on 15.2.1984. In recognition of the plaintiff’s care, he executed a registered will dated 7.10.1980 bequeathing all his property to him. The defendants forged an unregistered will dated 15.12.1983 to claim the estate. Despite prior validation of the plaintiff’s mutation, the impugned order unjustly clouds his title and emboldens the defendants to threaten his lawful possession.”

3. Upon notice, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed a joint written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable, as mutation confers no title and cannot be independently challenged. They asserted that the cause of action arose on Ganda Singh’s death on 15.2.1984, and the plaintiff’s earlier Civil Suit No. 181 of 1986, based on the same will and property, was withdrawn on 29.4.1988 without liberty to refile, thus barring the present suit under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC . They denied the plaintiff’s possession, affirmed the genuineness of the unregistered will dated 15.12.1983, and contended that no fresh cause of action exists post the order dated 2.2.1990.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication, reiterating and expressly reaffirming all material allegations set forth in the plaint, while specifically controverting and refuting the defenses and contentions advanced by the respondents. Upon meticulous examination of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and oral arguments, the Court has accordingly framed the following issues for determination to facilitate a focused and comprehensive adjudication of the rival claims and defenses, as detailed hereunder: -

1) Whether the Ganda Singh had executed a will dated 7-10-1980, in favour of the plaintiff?OPP.

2) Whether order dated 2.2.1990 of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab regarding mutation No.2190, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint is wrong and illegal?OPP.

3) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of t