D RAMA KRISHNA v. D NARASIMHULU

Heard Sri V. Jagadeesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri R. Sujan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V. Bharath, learned Counsel (appearing through video conference) representing on behalf of Sri Gouthami Surapa Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1

Sri V. Jagadeesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri R. Sujan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Impugned Order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda. Petitioners are the Plaintiffs. Suit is filed in the year 2018 seeking partition of property. In the year 2024, the Revision Petitioners have filed I.A.No.153 of 2024 seeking to withdraw the suit for the reasons stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the said I.A.No.153 of 2024.

For better appreciation of facts, Para No.2 of the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.153 of 2024 is usefully extracted hereunder:

2. I, submit that the above suit was posted to this day for trial. I further submit that by mistake and over sight I, have not pleaded in my plaint in regard to real dispute in between us and the respondents. Mean time the matter went up to the higher authorities and village elders, and they have suggested me to with draw the above suit and they have assured me that they would definitely settle the matter. I, submit that at advice of elders I am intended to with draw the above suit, I further submits that there is every possibility to settle the matter out of court, if the same is not possible I, should be at liberty to institute a fresh suit against the respondents to protect my right. So, I may be kindly permit to with draw the suit with a permission to file a fresh suit on same cause of action against the respondents/defendants, otherwise we, will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, and the respondents will get wrongful gain.

This Court has perused the Order impugned by the Petitioners dated

05.11.2024. The above extract makes it clear that the reason for withdrawing the Suit is for settlement out of the Court as well as to rectify the pleadings made in the original plaint.

Sri V. Bharath, learned Counsel (appearing through video conference) representing on behalf of Sri Gouthami Surapa Reddy, learned Counsel for 3 the Respondent No.1 would submit that the I.A is misconceived inasmuch as the reasons stated therein are inconsistent with the Code of Civil Procedure. This apart, if it is a settlement out of Court, there is no necessity for the Plaintiffs to withdraw the suit, inasmuch as the suit itself can be referred to Lok Adalath either for mediation or settlement out of the Court. He would also submit that the other reason given for withdrawal of the Suit is for including new pleadings, which the Plaintiffs have omitted at the time of filing of the Suit.

Sri V. Bharath, learned Counsel (appearing through video conference) representing on behalf of Sri Gouthami Surapa Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 would submit that the Plaintiffs ought to have resorted to other procedure under the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore, the present I.A. is misconceived.

This Court has considered the contents of the I.A as well as the Impugned Order. This Court is in agreement with the opinion of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda, dated 05.11.2024. The reasons stated in Para-2 of the Affidavit filed in support of the I.A. does not inspire confidence in the Court that the said I.A has been filed for bonafide reasons.

In this view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Order as to Costs.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 18.08.2025 JKS 4 37 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 777 OF 2025

18.08.2025 JKS