IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 Vivek Yadav and another …Petitioners V/s Karan Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The present revision petition assails the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad, vide which permission was granted to the respondents-plaintiffs to withdraw their suit i.e. CS No.2972 of 2024 with liberty to file a fresh suit.

2. A suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P-1) was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (Karan Singh and others) against the petitioners- defendants (Vivek Yadav and another), restraining the petitioners-defendants from raising any type of construction or from changing the nature of the suit land by carving out plots and from alienating/transferring any part of the suit land. The case set up was that the respondents-plaintiffs, being owners/co- sharers in possession of agricultural land (fully described in the plaint) situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhupani, Tehsil and District Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) had agreed to sell the suit land to the petitioners-defendants and, for the said purpose, had executed five agreements to sell, all dated 21.12.2024 fixing the sale consideration at Rs.1.92 crores per acre. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) (Annexure P-2) for the grant of ad interim injunction. The suit was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-3), wherein the factum of execution of the agreement to sell was admitted. Mention was made about five different suits for permanent injunction having been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs regarding each agreement to sell. On merits, certain facts were given. Reply (Annexure P-4) to the application for the grant of ad interim injunction was also submitted.

3. On 27.01.2025, learned counsel representing the respondents- plaintiffs suffered a statement that he wanted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The statement was opposed by the petitioners-defendants. However, vide the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, permission was granted, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It would be relevant to mention here that though the case is fixed for preliminary hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has put in appearance.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. Reference has been made to the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which provides for withdrawal/adjustment of suits and the circumstances in which a plaintiff can be permitted to withdraw a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. It has been submitted that the ingredients provided in the said provision were not present, in as much as, no application for withdrawal of the suit was filed, no formal defect in the suit was pointed out, no sufficient ground was shown for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and no such satisfaction was recorded by the trial Court. Learned counsel has referred to various documents annexed with the paper-book and has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable. Learned counsel has submitted that the suit could have been amended even if the respondents-plaintiffs wanted to challenge the agreement and there was no requirement of filing a fresh suit. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon;

1. Kunal Khurana vs. Puneet Kumar, 2025(1) Law Herald

496 (a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court);

2. V. Rajendran and anr. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) Thr.

Lrs. Karthyayani Natchiar, (2017) 5 SCC 63

3. Vinod Kumar vs. Gurdev Singh an