1 2025:CGHC:6646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 27 of 2025 1 - Ranjeeta Chand W/o Akhilesh Chand Aged About 44 Years R/o Near 7 Josaf Colony Near Church, Amlihdi, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) 2 - Nitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Dinesh Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Panchsheel Nagar Baloda Bazar, Dist - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Surjit Kaur W/o Late Shri Ranjit Singh Chawla Aged About 65 Years R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Dist - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Sumit Singh Chawla S/o Late Shri Ranjit Singh Chawla Aged About 50 Years R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Dist - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Sweta Upveja D/o Late Shri Ranjit Singh Chawla Aged About 45 Years R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Dist - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Gurjeet Mother Smita, S/o Manish Kumar Wadhwa Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 143, Gurudwara Road, Gurunanak Ward, Basna, Dist - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Ashpreet Kaur Mother Smita, S/o Manish Kumar Wadhwa Aged About 20 Years R/o House No. 143, Gurudwara Road, Gurunanak Ward, Basna, Dist - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 6 - Sanjeet Singh Chawla S/o Late Shri Ranjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Old Bijli Office, Baloda Bazar, Dist - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 7 - District Deputy Registrar Through State Of Chhattisgarh, Dist. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhttisgarh AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI 2025.02.06 15:55:48 +0530 2 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, Dist - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Mnij, GA. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicants/defendants No.1 to 3 have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No.04-A/2024, whereby, application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that before filing of the instant suit, respondent No.1 to 5 (plaintiffs) have filed Civil Suit No.11-A/2024 before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Balodabazar on 02.02.2024 for declaration of title, partition and for declaration of sale deed dated 27.12.2023 as null and void. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have preferred an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for permission to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute fresh suit. The said application was allowed on 08.07.2024 by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balodabazar. Thereafter, present Civil Suit No.04-A/2024 has been filed before the Principal District Judge, Balodabazar for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also to declare the sale deed dated 27.12.2023 and Will dated 17.05.2024 as null and void. In the present suit, the applicants have raised an objection that the earlier application was filed 3 for return of the plaint and not for withdrawal of the suit and when the plaint was returned, it ought to have filed as it is before the proper Court. However, the plaintiffs have filed fresh suit after deletion and addition in the relief clause without permission of the Court. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs itself is not maintainable. However, said application has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that though no choice is given after the plaint is returned under Order 7 Rule 10 or 10A, however, the plaintiff is required to file the returned plaint before the proper Court. He would submit that in the earlier suit, the application titled as application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC has been considered in substance of application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and submission was also made with regard to want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, considering the prayer of the plaintiffs, the said application was allowed. However, the plaintiff has filed a fresh plaint with addition and deletion in the relief which is bad in law. He also submits that the trial Court failed to consider that relief claimed for declaration for will as null and void was not the part of the earlier plaint and no permission was sought or granted to add or delete the relief. In such circumstances, the second suit is barred by the provisions stipulated in law. He submits that the trial Court committed grave error in rejecting the objection raised by the applicants, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. In support of contention, learned counsel has placed reliance in the matter 4 of St. George Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. MV “Irene P” a Foreign Flag Vessel and Ors [AIR 1999 BOMBAY 280]. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the order impugned. 5. Admittedly, earlier the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the suit in which he has sought liberty to file fresh suit, in accordance with law. Learned trial Court vide order dated 08.07.2024 allowed the said application and granted permission to return the suit. 6. Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC allows the plaintiff to withdraw a suit and file a new one if the court is satisfied with certain conditions. Further, there is no bar to add or delete the relief clause in the plaint as the fresh suit has to be examined as per contents in the said plaint and not as per the earlier suit. 7. Moreover, after perusing the case law referred by the applicant, this Court finds the said case to be distinguishable on facts, therefore, the same is of no help to the applicant. 8. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Resultantly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay