Funher reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C'ourt tn v. RQendran and Anr. us Annasamlt Pandian

Sri. K Veerananda, S/o. Sri. K. Murali, Aged about. 32 Years' Occ. Employee P/o. Paralotha Cheruvu Village Anantapur ...RespondenUDefendant AND lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 09-08-2024 in CRP No. 2481 of 2024 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. J. SRINIVAS, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Mr MS.CHANDRESH' AdvocaG The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA ORDER: Flearrd Sri J.Srinivas, Ieamed counsel for the peritioners and Sri MS.Chandresh, leamed counsel for the respondent.

2. This cvil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

18.07.2024 passed in I.ANo.556 of 2024 in O.S.No.89O of 2022(Old O.S.No.965 of 2003) by rhe leamed II Additional Senior Gvil Judge, Medchal-IUalkajgiri District at Kushaiguda. 3- The revision petitioners have filed the said suit seeking pelpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule properr),consisting of plot No.lZ- c with Municipal No.4-123l6A in Survey No.64, admeasuring 630 square yarids, situated ar Swaroop Nagar, Uppal Kalan, Uppal Municipaliry : Ranga ReddyDistria. Thereafter, amendmenrs were carried in the prapr byseeking relief of declaration that the revision petitioner No.2 is the owner of the suit schedule properryand to declare the sale deed document No.1662 of 1967 as null and void. The nurner came up for evidence of the revision petitionen in th. Fr. 2014, but the same was closed as the evidence was not recorded. Aggrieved by the same, earlier, civil revision petition wa-* preferred and the sar* was dismissed. Therefore, there is no evidence of the revision rs on record to support the suit clairn After closing of the evidence t 2 of the revision petitioners, the respondent has led the evidence and curently, the suit is at the stage of arguments. +. At that juncture, I.ANo.5 66 of 2024 was filed under Orider 23 Rule 3 of CP.C to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. The respondent opposed the petition and the I.A came to be dtsmissed aide impugned order dated I8.07.202a. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. S. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that a petition to withdraw can be filed at any stage of the proceedings in a suit and that there is a formal defect as there is no evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs and therefore, the revision petitioners intend to withdrawthe suit for filing a fresh suit.

6. In suppon of his clairn, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C.ourt n KS.Bhoopatbl and others us. Kokila and otbersl, wherein it was held as follows:- "The prese.rt Rule which was introduced in place of the old Rule 1 by the Amendment Act of 1976 makes a distinction beuween absolute withdrewal u,hich is termed as 'abandonment' and withdrawal with the permission of the Court. This clear disdnction is maintained throughout in the subsdtuted Rule by making appropriate changes in the wording of various sub-nrles of Rule 1. The law CI to wfthdrawal of suits as enaded in the present Rule may be r] generally stated in two paru (a) a plaintiff can abandon a suit or abandon a pan of his claim as a nr:rner of right without the permission of the Coun; in that case he will be precluded from suing again on the same cause of action. Neither ' AR 2ooo suptemc court 2732 I / I 3 the plaintiff can abandon a suit or a pan of the suit reserving to himself a right to bring a fresh suir, nor can rhe defendant insist that the plarntiff musr be compelled to proceed with the suit; and (b) a plairuiff rnay, in rhe circurnsrances mentioned in sub-nrle (3) be peimined by rhe coun rc withdraw from a suit with liberry ro sue afresh on the sarne cause of action. Such riberry being grantecl by the coun enables rhe plaintiff to avoid the bar in order II Rule 2 and Section 11, C.P.C The provision in orrder )o(II, Rure 1, cp.c is an exception to the common law principle of non-suir. Therefore on principle an application by a plaintiff under sub'nrle (3) cannot b. treated on par wirh an applicarion byhim in exercise o[ the absolute libercygiven to him under sub_mle(l)." +. Funher reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C'ourt tn V. RQendran and Anr. us Annasamlt Pandian ()) Thr. Lrs. Kartlyayni NahhiaP vdrerein it is held as follows: "fu p.. Order )O(II Rule lp) CFC suit may only be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suir when the coun is satisfied that the suir must fail for reason of some formal defecr or rhat there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to instirue a fresh suir. The power ro allow rvithdrawal of a suit is discretionary. In the appricarion, the plaintiff murst make our a case in terms of oder )o(II Rule I (3) (") or (b) cpc and must ask for leave. The c-oun can allow the application filed under orrder )o(II Rure 1 (3) cpc for withdraw-al of rhe suir with liberry to bring a fresh suit only if the co'dition in either of the clause (a) or (b) that is, existence of a "formal defecr, or ,sufficient grounds". The principle under order )ooII Rule 1 (J) ac is founded on public policy to prevenr instirution of suit again and again on the same cause of action." \ 8' In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence of the revision petitione$ as plaintiffs was closed due to their own negligence and failure to lead evidence for a period of eight Fars. After closing of the evidence on behalf of the revision pedtioners, civil revision t t ' eh ZOll Sttpreme Couft 685 \ 't. petition was preferred and the same was dismissed. Since the order in the civil revision petition was not challenged, the said order became final. Thereafter, the respondent has led his evidence and the respondent's uritness was cross- examined. Learned counsel further submined that in case the present civil revision petition is allowed gr:anting liberry to the revision petitioners to file a fresh suit, the same would nulify the order passed bythis C-oun in the earlier civil revision petition. B. After conclwion of aryuments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought permission to withdraw the suit unconditionally for which there is no objection to the leamed counsel for the respondent. lO. Since the revision petitioners have sought to withdraw the civil revision petition turconditionally, this Gvil Revision Petition is disposed of bygranting permission ro the revision petitioners to withdraw the suit unconditionally before the trial C-oun. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, tf any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI ASSISTANT ,/TRUE GOPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, M.

1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

2. One CC to Mr. J. SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies r____ -,-_-:--- | .r .:t' I HIGH COURT DATED: 28t1012025 \ a) ) i . rjz, r:. *''i:..- '/'E S lh 1 16 0tt 2[6 z * i:;!' ORDER CRP.No.2481 of 2024 This Civil Revision Petition is Disposed of \7 f