1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No. 123 of 2024 Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 Anil Kumar & anr ...Petitioners Versus Tilak Raj ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mr.Gurinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.Dhiraj Kumar Vashisht, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 Amb, dated 04.10.2023, whereby an application 0led by the plainti1 for the withdrawal of the suit under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) C.P.C has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plainti1/respondent has 0led a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, raising any sort of construction, by taking forcible possession, by ousting the plainti1, and by uprooting the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 boundaries over the land bearing Khewat No. 320 min,322, Khatoni Nos. 628,630, khasra Nos.1324, 1324/1 and 1322, kita 3 as entered in jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 and further with a prayer of mandatory injunction by way of demolition of super structure. 3. Admittedly, the suit was 0led by the plainti1 in the year 2011 and the same was duly contested by the present petitioners/defendants by 0ling a detailed written statement on 07.05.2011. 4. The plainti1-respondent on 09.06.2023 0led an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) C.P.C for the withdrawal of the suit with liberty to 0le it a fresh in the interest of justice.The application was duly resisted by the present petitioners/defendants by submitting that the defendants have been dragged by the plainti1 in an uncalled-for litigation for the last more than 13-15 years, therefore, at this stage, the plainti1/respondent cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit. 5. The aforesaid application came up for consideration before the learned trial Court on 04.10.2023, on which date same was allowed and the plainti1/respondent was permitted to withdraw the suit subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-. 3 6. Feeling dissatis0ed, the defendants/petitioners have approached this Court by 0ling the instant petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was 0xed for the 0nal arguments and the case was at the fag end, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application for withdrawal of the suit. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that since there was a formal defect in the case in hand, therefore, permission has been rightly granted by the learned trial Court. 8. The impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court does not su1er from any in0rmity. The Court below has allowed the prayer of the present respondent/plainti1 for the withdrawal of the suit and cost of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed upon the respondent/plainti1. The learned trial Court has committed no error and in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required in the said order. However, in order to maintain balance between the parties, it will be desirable in the interest of justice that the cost of Rs.15000/- is increased to Rs.25,000/-. It is ordered that the order as passed by the learned trial Court dated 04.10.2023, shall be made applicable 4 subject to the respondent is paying cost of Rs.25,000/- to the present petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 9. The present petition is disposed o1 in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed o1. (Romesh Verma), Judge 06.04.2026 (veena)