1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Revision No.57 of 2024 Date of Decision: June 2, 2025 Balo Ram ….Petitioner. Versus Joginder & others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is ex parte vide order dated 12.07.2024. Respondent No.3 stands deleted vide order dated 30.09.2024. Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral) Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit No.366 of 2018, titled as Balo Ram vs. Joginder and others, for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction and Mandatory Injunction, wherein an application CMA No.86 of 2024, filed under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC, seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, has been dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2024, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., on the ground that there was no formal defect in the suit and no ground for the petitioner-plaintiff to institute a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 fresh suit for the same subject matter of the suit as required under Sub-Clause (a) and (b) of order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC, was made out. 2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff submits that petitioner is not pressing his prayer for withdrawing the suit under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC, but only under Order 23 Rule 1 (1) CPC, which permits the petitioner- plaintiff to withdraw the suit or abandon a part of his claim with further submission that fresh suit proposed to be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff would be based upon another cause of action and for declaration of ownership of the petitioner in exclusion of claim of title of the defendants and, according to him, fresh suit will be entirely different in nature and, therefore, petitioner- plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 (1) CPC, but without imposing any costs by taking a lenient view. 3. Keeping in view the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, Civil Suit No.366 of 2018, titled as Balo Ram vs. Joginder and others, is permitted to be withdrawn, as prayed hereinabove, on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff with observation that if permissible, under law, petitioner may file and maintain independent fresh suit, subject to all just and legal exceptions. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or observation with respect to rival contentions of the parties and fresh suit, if any instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff, shall be adjudicated and decided in accordance with law, without 3 being influenced by any observation of this Court made in this order. By taking a lenient view, no further costs is being imposed upon the petitioner-plaintiff except the cost already imposed by the Trial Court. 5. Petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. June 2, 2025 (Purohit)