The court allowed the withdrawal of a suit for injunction to file a comprehensive suit based on changed circumstances, emphasizing the need for justice considering the petitioner's health and age.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2024, passed in I.A.No.82 of 2024 in O.S.No.482 of 2022, by the Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

2. Heard Sri S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.482 of 2022 for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-15 gts in Survey No.978, Pathipally village, Mulugu Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District (for short ‘suit property’); that he has also filed an application for ad-interim injunction and the same was granted by the trial Court. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 before the trial Court for amendment of the plaint on the ground that his counsel did not properly mention the boundaries of suit schedule property. However, the said I.A., was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 28.06.2023 and there was no further challenge to the said order.

4. The petitioner has filed another I.A.No.82 of 2024 contending that nature of suit property has been changed and that the boundaries of suit property as well as defendants’ addresses were not correctly mentioned in the suit; that he has purchased the suit property in the year 1980 and he was also issued with title deed; that he had worked as a Government Teacher at Kondapur and Rayaparthy and that he was forced to reside at Warangal; that taking advantage of his absence, the respondents had occupied the suit property. It is further contended that the petitioner had retired from the service and he is aged about 80 years and suffering with old age ailments. By contending thus, he is seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh comprehensive suit.

5. The respondents have filed a counter in the said I.A.No.82 of 2024, denying the averments of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner had already sold the suit property to them by executing unregistered sale deeds dated 18.05.1985 and 06.06.2001; that respondent No.1 has constructed residential house in the suit schedule property under Indiramma Pathakam in the name of his daughter and also established a business of Welding Machine and Flour mill and that at no point of time the petitioner was in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, it was contended that earlier the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.06.2023 on the ground that the petitioner was not able to identify the location of the suit property; that without disclosing the nature of the suit intending to be filed, the petitioner filed the application i.e., I.A.No.82 of 2024 and therefore, said application is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court, having considered the application filed by the petitioner as well as the counter filed by the respondents dismissed I.A.No.82 of 2024 vide order dated 05.07.2024 with an observation that earlier, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of suit property and the same was dismissed on merits and again the petitioner came up with another application seeking permission to withdraw the suit and file fresh suit and that one of the ground mentioned in the application is same i.e., the boundaries of suit property were wrongly mentioned in the suit, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit as it would be in conflict with the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022. Aggrieved by the said order dated 05.07.2024, in I.A.No.82 of 2024, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that initially, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and an ad interim injunction was granted by the Trial Court. However, owing to his old age ailments, the petitioner was hospitalized; he is retired Government Teacher and he was residing at Warangal and therefore, t