IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 655 of 2024 Decided on: 27.05.2025 Dina Nath .…Petitioner. Versus Anil Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed against order dated 26.10.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Badsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 305 of 2024, whereby the application of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time seeks permission to withdraw this petition as also the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed before learned Trial Court with liberty to file afresh application for rejection of plaint by raising all available grounds under law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer on the ground that by allowing the petitioner to withdraw the application, the rights of the respondent shall be prejudiced. 4. Having considered rival submissions, I am of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner being innocuous is liable to be allowed. Even if the impugned order remains as it is, it will not stop the petitioner from filing fresh application for rejection of plaint on any other ground that has not been raised in this application. 3 5. In this view of the matter, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with liberty to file afresh application on the grounds available to him in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is also dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th May, 2025 Judge (sushma)