HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3374 of 2018 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.7.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jalaun at Orai in Original Suit No.367 of 2013 on an application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. with a liberty to file fresh suit against the order passed by the trial court. The revision was filed by the petitioner and the same has also been rejected. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the suit which was filed in the year 2013 there was certain factual errors which were mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner. The objections were filed by the defendant to the application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The said application has been rejected without recorded any finding on the grounds taken by the plaintiff. The only finding recorded by the court below is as under : " मेरे द्वारा पत्रावली का अवलोकन िकया गया। अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है िक वादी एवं वाद अग्रसािरत नहीं करना चाहता है और पुनः वाद दायर करने की अनुमित के साथ उक्त वाद वापसी कये जाने की याचना की गयी है। पत्रावली पर प्रितवादी की ओर से दािखल आपित्त 44ग2 में विणत तथ्यों एवं प्राथर्ना पत्र 40क 1 में विणत तथ्यों को दृिष्टगत रखते हुये वादी को इन्ही तथ्यों पर पुनः वाद दायर न करने की अनुमित के साथ उसका वाद वापस िकया जाना न्यायोिचत होगा। " 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Civil Judge is cryptic, unreasoned and without considering the facts of the case. The revisional court rejected the revision Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : J.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.P. Tiwari Ram Swaroop .....Petitioner(s) Sachin Srivastava And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) with the finding that since the matter relates to declaration of title regarding agricultural land, the jurisdiction for the same is with the revenue court, therefore, liberty can not be granted to the plaintiff- petitioner. The question as to whether the suit will be cognizable by revenue court or by the civil court is to be decided once the suit is filed. Both the courts have passed the orders impugned without recording any cogent reason for rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.7.2017 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Jalaun at Orai as well as the order dated 1.2.2018 passed by District Judge, Jalaun at Orai are set aside. 6. Since, this matter is pending for more than seven years before this Court, I am not remanding the matter to the trial court to decide the application afresh. The application dated 1.11.2014 filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the suit being Paper No. 40Ka is allowed with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit as prayed with correct particulars. September 18, 2025 S. Singh A227 No. 3374 of 2018 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad