IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Sonu @ Sunil ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gram Panchayat Nainwal (now superseded)

Municipal Corporation, Manesar through its Commissioner ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aashish Copra, Senior Advocate through V.C. with Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate and Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1); whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) CPC (wrongly mentioned as Rules 1 and 3 CPC in the petition), has been dismissed by the ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram in Civil Suit No. CS-1174-2018 titled as Sonu alias Sunil vs. Gram Panchayat Nainwal

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner through V.C., that the learned Trial Court was in error in dismissing the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the suit as it failed to appreciate that the plaint suffered from various material defects which required correction; which were necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. It is submitted that for this reason, the petitioner had also filed an application dated 23.09.2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. However, even the said application suffers from certain errors; due to which petitioner is now constrained to file a fresh application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is contended that these errors have inadvertently crept into the pleadings as the case is very complicated involving old and extensive revenue records et cetera, which had to be reconciled. It is pointed out that this fact has been noticed by the learned Trial Court in para 11 of the impugned order as follows: “……… The suit involves complex issues of revenue records, mutations, and prior judicial proceedings, including orders dated 23.07.1992 and 04.08.2011, and Mutation No. 1090 dated 27.08.2011, which the plaintiff has not challenged in the present suit.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the abovesaid latter observation of the Trial Court is factually incorrect as, petitioner has categorically stated in para 7 of the plaint (Annexure P-2) as follows:-

“7. That the Plaintiff being effected party and seriously aggrieved by passing of the said orders dated 23.07.1992 and 04.08.2011 and also the consequent Mutation No. 1090 dated 27.08.2011, seeks your indulgence for the review setting aside of the said orders dated 23.07.1992 and 04.08.2011 as well as setting aside of the consequent Mutation No. 1090 dated 27.08.2011 on the following grounds: ………”

4. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Trial Court failed to apprise itself of the correct facts of the case. Moreover, the prayer clause is also required to be amended. Learned Senior Counsel argues that therefore, the petitioner ought to have been permitted to withdraw the present suit to file afresh with better pleadings. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly prays for setting aside of the impugned order.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned Senior counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel.

6. Perusal of the record of the case shows that petitioner had filed the instant Civil Suit on 03.05.2018 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, petitioner had first moved an application dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P- 10) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of prayer clause of the suit. Thereafter, petitioner had moved the instant application dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-8) under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty “to file fresh suit on the existing cause of action along with all other relevant