1 2026:HHC:34887 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 14 of 2026 Decided on: 18.8.2026 State of H.P. & anr. … Petitioners Versus Kamla Devi …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The state of H.P. & another have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 21.11.20214, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 560 of 2018, titled as, ‘Kamla Devi versus State of H.P.& another’. 2 2026:HHC:34887 2. By way of order dated 21.11.2024, the learned trial Court has allowed the application, filed by the respondent, under Order 23 Rules 1 (3) CPC. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts leading to filing the present petition, before this Court, as per the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiff Kamla Devi has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the land bearing Khata No. 137, Khatauni No. 140, Khasra No. 116, measuring 0- 01-04 hect. in village and P.O. Dhaned, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. has wrongly been decreased from 10 marlas to 0k-05k and under Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, for completion of total area upto 10 marlas, in the revenue record and for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering and ousting the plaintiff from the suit land, in any manner, whatsoever and for mandatory injunction. 4.1 The suit has been filed on the ground that the 3 2026:HHC:34887 plaintiff is the owner of the above described land, but, in the revenue record, the land has wrongly been shown as 0-01-04 hect., instead of 10 marlas. 4.2. The suit has been contested by the defendants by taking preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable; earlier suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default, on 24.7.2017; the plaintiff is estopped by her acts and conduct to file the present suit; the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts; and she has no locus standi to file the present suit. 4.3 The suit has further been contested on the ground that as per Jamabandi for the year 1960-61, the land comprised in Khata No. 43, khatauni No. 179 min, 197 khasra No. 1, land measuring 22k-5M was recorded as Banjar Kadeem to the extent of 4 kanals and 18 kanal 15 marlas, was recorded in the name of District Board School, consisting of Gair Mumkin School to the extent of 4 kanal 2 marlas and ground to the extent of 14 kanal 3 marlas, whereas, the plaintiff is owner in possession of 4 2026:HHC:34887 the land measuring 0-01-04 hect., as per latest revenue record. 5. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC has been filed with a prayer to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of action. 6. The application has been filed, on the ground, that there is a formal defect in the present suit and for the said reason, the suit failed. Withdrawal of the suit has also been sought on the ground that the similar matter has been instituted for reversion of suit land before the Sub-Divisional Collector, under H.P. Village Common Land. 7. On the basis of above facts, liberty has been sought to withdraw the present suit, with a permission to file the fresh one, on the same cause of action. 8. The application has been contested on the ground that the application is not maintainable at the belated stage; and the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands. 5 2026:HHC:34887 9. On merits, the application has been contested on the ground that plaintiff has not disclosed the fact that the matter is subjudice, before the Sub-Divisional Collector, as such, she has suppressed the material facts. The application has also been contested on the ground that the ground, upon which, the suit has been sought to be withdrawn, with the liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of action, was already in the knowledge of the plaintiff, prior to filing the suit. 10. The learned trial Court, after considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, has permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, with the liberty to file afresh, vide order dated 21.11.2024, which has been assailed before this Court. 11. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has granted the permission to withdraw the suit. Operative portion of the order, passed by the learned trial Court, is reproduced as under: “However, in the given facts and circumstances permission to withdraw the present suit shall be subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- to compensate the opposite party. Accordingly, the application in hand is considered and allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000/-. Resultantly, 6 2026:HHC:34887 permission to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file afresh is granted. The application stands disposed of. It be tagged with the main case file. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 12. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has already filed appropriate proceedings, before the Sub-Divisional Collector, this Court is of the view that there was a formal defect in the plaint, which cannot be cured, by moving application for amendment. The pleadings are so inter-mingled that it was not possible for the plaintiff to segregate the claim, which, she has sought before the Sub-Divisional Collector, as well as, before the Civil Court, as plaintiff has sought decree of declaration, as well as, relief, under Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which can only by granted by the revenue authorities, as well as, injunction. 13. Considering the low legal literacy of the Indian masses, the applicant/plaintiff, who is senior citizen, cannot be penalized for seeking multiple reliefs, as the said reliefs cannot be granted by the Civil Court. As such, the above defect falls within the definition of ‘formal defect’ on the ground of which, the suit may fail. 7 2026:HHC:34887 Even otherwise, the learned trial Court has compensated the defendants in terms of costs. 14. Considering the stand of the defendants in the present petition, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be found fault with, particularly, under the limited supervisory jurisdiction, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, as the defendants have failed to probabilize the fact that the learned trial Court has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction, in allowing the application for withdrawal. 15. With these observations, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 18.8.2026 Judge Kalpana