IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 06.04.2026 Renu and others ...... Petitioners versus Nisha ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Sunil K.S. Panwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Rana, Advocate Mr. Dhru Singh Panwar, Advocate and Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhiwani whereby an application filed by the plaintiff seeking withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit by incorporating challenge to the earlier transaction has been allowed.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that she is the sole owner in possession of the agricultural land as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint and challenged gift deed (Hibbanama), i.e. document bearing No.1617 dated 05.10.2016.

3. At the stage when the defendants were to file written statement, present application was moved seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. By way of impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit granting liberty to file fresh one.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the order passed by the Trial Court. He submits that prior to the gift deed, there was a decree passed by the Lok Adalat based upon the admission of the present plaintiff. Despite being in the knowledge of the said decree, plaintiff abandoned her right to challenge the same. Thus, the subsequent suit would be barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. However, the Court failed to take cognizance of the said fact and illegally allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. He further submits that the permission granted is beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested with the Court under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC as permission to file a fresh suit cannot be granted when the same has an effect of enlarging the scope of the lis.

5. I have heard Ld. senior counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking declaration to the effect that she is sole owner in possession of the agricultural land as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint. She further sought decree of declaration to the effect that the gift deed bearing No. 1617 dated 05.10.2016 is not binding qua her rights. The dispute is between the members of family. From the records, it is discernible that Bihari Lal left behind three sons namely Manoj Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Parkash Chand. Plaintiff is wife of Manoj Kumar. Defendant No.1 happens to be wife of Ravinder Kumar. Defendant No.3 is wife of Parkash Chand. Plaintiff claims that defendant No.1 and 3 got her signatures on certain documents on the pretext of getting the land partitioned. Instead of executing partition deed, defendant No.1 and 3 got gift deed executed in their favour.

7. Before the defendants filed written statement, plaintiff filed present application seeking withdrawal of suit on the ground that the same was filed in undue haste and challenge to decree dated 24.08.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 159 could not be incorporated inadvertently. The Trial Court allowed the application vide impugned order observing as under:-

“Arguments on the application to withdraw the suit with the permission to file the afresh heard. As the case is at initial stage and plaintiff need to challenge some more transaction which may be eclipsing her rights, therefore, application in hand stand allowed and present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and permission granted to file afresh.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

8. In order to appreciate the contention raised by senior counsel for the petitioner, it will be up to peruse Order XXIII, CPC which reads as under:-

“WITHDRAWAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF SUITS 1[1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part