1 2026:HHC:36559 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 41 of 2026 Reserved on : 6.7.2026 Decided on: 27.8.2026 Uploaded on:27.8.2026 Amita Mahajan … Petitioner Versus Subhash Chand & ors. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Reeta Hingmang and Mr. Mridul Nag, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate, for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(d), 9 and 10. Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12. Virender Singh, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), with a prayer to set 2 2026:HHC:36559 aside the order dated 28.8.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 133 of 2023, filed in Civil Suit No. 261 of 2016, titled as, ‘Subhash Chand versus Sanjay Kumar & others’. 2. 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. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiff Subhash Chand has filed suit for the decree of declaration to the effect that the defendant No.1 was not the tenant of the plaintiff, at any time, before the enforcement of the Tenancy Law under H.P. Land Tenancy Act and the mutation in favour of the defendant No.1, in revenue paper vide rapat No.163 is illegal, null and void qua land bearing khata No.296 min, 263, khatoni No.831, khasra No.1188, 2998/1192 area measuring 00-13-16 Hects and khata No.299, 3 2026:HHC:36559 khatoni No.834, khasra No.1320, 3011 land measuring 0-14-10 Hects., shown in present revenue record, in Mohal and Mouja Ghuggar, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’) and revenue mutation in favour of defendant as tenant, are wrong, illegal, manipulated, null and void, as according to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their predecessor-in-interest have no right, title, interests upon the suit land. 3.1 The said relief has been sought on the ground that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, after the decision of the LR-V and after that share of the earlier tenants and owner of the suit land had been bifurcated as per order of the LR-V Missal No.565/LR-V date of order 4.4.1992, as mentioned in Missal Hakiat, and the earlier tenants of the suit land were named as Bhekhu S/o Lobhi and Lachman @ Jatiya S/o Sidhu and there is no name of the defendant No.1 as tenant of the suit land and neither the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 remained as tenant of the plaintiff, as according to the plaintiff, till 1992, Bhekhu and Lachman @ Jatiya 4 2026:HHC:36559 were the tenants of the plaintiff and aforesaid suit land was bifurcated after the decision of the LR-V, and mutated in the name of plaintiff alongwith other co- sharers, however, defendant No.4, who was the GPA of the plaintiff, as at that time, plaintiff was in the ITBP and could not manage and look after the property and he had given the GPA to defendant No.4 to manage the property, but the defendant No. 1, in connivance with defendants No.4 and 5 got mutation of the suit land, in his favour, as a tenant, by giving the statement in favour of father of defendants No. 1 to 3. 3.2. It is further averred by the plaintiff that he, after the retirement, had seen that the revenue entry of the suit land was up to the mark and there is no name of the defendant Nos.1 to 3, in any column, and defendant No.4 had never disclosed this very fact that he had made the statement in favour of father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, being GPA of plaintiff. On inquiry, it was found that defendant No.4 had sold the suit land to the father of defendants No.1 to 3, much earlier and now, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit land. 5 2026:HHC:36559 3.3 It is the further case of the plaintiff that his GPA was misused by defendant No. 4 and inducted father of defendants No. 1 to 3, as tenant, over the suit land. 4. When, put to notice, the suit has been contested by defendants No. 1 to 3, by filing written statement, taking the preliminary objections, that plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit; the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit; plaintiff has not challenged the order dated 5.10.1995, passed by the AC-Ist Grade, Palampur; the suit of the plaintiff is vague; father of defendants No. 1 to 3 was in physical possession of the suit land and the said fact has also been confirmed by the Field Revenue Officer; the suit is barred by limitation; and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. 4.1 On merit, the suit has been contested, on the ground, that neither the plaintiff, nor defendant No. 6, are owners in possession of the suit land, whereas, father of defendants No. 1 to 3, was in actual physical possession of the suit land, as tenant, and the wrong 6 2026:HHC:36559 revenue entries stood corrected by the competent revenue officer. 5. Defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 had filed their written statement, admitting the claim of defendants No. 1 to 3. 6. Before the learned trial Court could frame issues, in the present case, on 21.9.2022, plaintiff has made a statement, before the Court, disclosing therein, that all the disputes have been resolved with the defendants and on the basis of said ground, the suit has been dismissed, as withdrawn. 7. Thereafter, in the year 2023, plaintiff Subhash Chand moved an application, under Order 23 CPC, bearing CMA No. 115 of 2023, for recalling the order of dismissal as withdrawn, in Civil Suit No. 261 of 2016, titled as, ‘Subhash Chand versus Sanjay Kumar & ors.’ and restoration of the suit to its original number. 8. The said application has been filed, on the ground, that the basis of the withdrawal of the suit, between the parties, is oral settlement and the oral settlement was that defendants No. 1 to 3 shall leave 7 2026:HHC:36559 half of the suit land, as defendants No. 4 and 5 had abandoned their claim, in the suit land. 9. It is the further case of the plaintiff that by way of Civil suit, he has challenged the revenue entries, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3, as tenants, being illegal, null and void. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, Bekhu, s/o Lobhi and Lachman @ Jatia are the recorded tenants of the plaintiff. It has further been averred in the application that defendants No. 1 to 3 had no option, but to admit the claim to the extent of half of the suit land. 10. Levelling the allegations, against the counsel, representing the plaintiff, it has been averred that the counsel has not prepared any memorandum of settlement deed/ compromise deed and withdrawn the suit. 11. Hence, a prayer was made to recall the order dated 21.9.2022, and to restore it to its original number. 12. When, put to notice, defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 had put appearance, but, despite service of notice, defendants No. 1 to 3 had not opted to contest the 8 2026:HHC:36559 application, as such, they were proceeded against ex- parte, vide order dated 23.11.2023. 13. Defendants No. 4 to 6 filed their reply, admitting the claim of the plaintiff, in the application for restoration. A strange plea has also been taken by defendants No. 4 to 6 in the reply that defendant No. 6 has died during the pendency of the civil suit, and when, the case was listed for bringing on record the legal representatives of defendant No. 6, the Court overlooked the previous order, and dismissed the suit as withdrawn, which, according to the reply, filed by defendants No. 4 to 6, seriously affected the rights of the LRs of respondent No. 6. 14. 14. On the basis of the said stand, learned trial Court has allowed the application, on 28.8.2025, by restoring the suit to its original number. 15. The said order has now been challenged by petitioner Amita Mahajan, by filing the present Revision re-asserting the above factual position, taking the plea that during pendency of the civil suit, defendants No. 1 to 3, namely, Sanjay Kumar, Ranjit Singh and Rajeev 9 2026:HHC:36559 Kumar, S/o Bihari Lal had executed the sale deed No. 1617/2020, dated 24.11.2020 and transferred the suit land, in favour of Naveen Chand and Praveen Chand, who have been impleaded as respondents No. 11 and 12, in the present petition. On the basis of said sale deed, said Naveen Chand and Praveen Chand stepped into the shoes of land owner, despite having the knowledge of the transfer. Plaintiff never took any steps to implead Naveen Chand and Praveen Chand, as necessary parties, and when, the litigation was over, then, the present petitioner Amita Mahajan purchased the suit land from Naveen Chand and Praveen Chand, through the sale deed, which was executed and registered on 4.1.2023. 16. In nut-shell, it is the case of the petitioner that she is bonafide purchaser of the suit land, as at the time of execution of the sale deed, she had no knowledge of any litigation, concerning the suit land, as the plaintiff had already withdrawn the suit, un-conditionally. 17. On the basis of above facts, the petitioner has asserted that she is necessary and proper party, to be 10 2026:HHC:36559 impleaded in the application, for restoration of the suit, which has been moved by the plaintiff. 18. According to the petitioner, even on the basis of stand, taken in the application for restoration, the trial Court should not have restored the suit, as defendants No. 1 to 3 had not contested the said application and respondents/defendants No. 4 to 6 had supported the case of the plaintiff, for restoration, even by making false allegations against the Court. 19. Order dated 28.8.2025 is also stated to be bad in law, as the same has been obtained by the plaintiff by deliberately suppressing the material facts, qua the fact that the suit land had already been transferred, in favour of the petitioner, through the registered sale deed. 20. Another ground to challenge the order dated 28.8.2025 has also been challenged, on the ground, that the suit cannot be restored, under the provisions of section 151 of the CPC, as there are specific provisions in Order 23 CPC, which lay down the entire statutory framework, regulating the withdrawal of the suits, the 11 2026:HHC:36559 consequences thereof and the circumstances, under which, a fresh suit may or may not be instituted. 21. On the basis of above facts, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, while restoring the suit, filed by the plaintiff, as withdrawal of the suit was unconditional, on the basis of the compromise, which has allegedly been taken place, between the parties. 22. The prayer, so made, has been opposed by Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 2(a) to 2(d), 9 and 10, on the ground that the petitioner has filed the present petition, before this Court, which is not maintainable, in the absence of any jurisdictional error, failure/excess of jurisdiction or material irregularity, on the part of the learned trial Court. 23. The prayer has also been opposed on the ground that the learned trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction, under Section 151 CPC, to recall the order, dismissing the suit as withdrawn. The scope of revision 12 2026:HHC:36559 is extremely narrow and no jurisdictional error is made out, in the present case. 24. Another ground to oppose the prayer is that the petitioner’s rights have been protected. The prayer has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of bonafide purchaser for value, without notice, in the present case. 25. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that the present Revision petition may kindly be dismissed. 26. Petitioner has, although, filed petition under Section 115 of the CPC, but, the petitioner has attacked the order, passed by the learned trial Court, on account of the fact that the learned trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to restore a suit, which had earlier been dismissed, as withdrawn, on the basis of the compromise, arrived at, between the parties to the suit. 27. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the civil suit, which was dismissed, as withdrawn by plaintiff Subhash Chand, after making unequivocal statement that he did not want to press the suit, as all the pending 13 2026:HHC:36559 disputes with the defendants had been settled, and as such, he intended to abandon/withdraw the suit. Neither the terms and conditions of the withdrawal of the suit has been mentioned in the settlement, nor any document, demonstrating the terms and conditions of the compromise, between the parties, has been placed before the learned trial Court. The importance of reasons for withdrawal, as well as, terms and conditions of the settlement, assumes significance, in the present case, as the plaintiff, by way of application, under Section 151 CPC, has sought revival of the suit, on the ground that defendants No. 1 to 3 had assured him that they would leave half of the suit land to him, but, they have not done so. 28. In the absence of any statement, made by the plaintiff, before the learned trial Court, on 21.9.2022, to the effect that defendants No. 1 to 3 had agreed to leave half of the share, in his favour, then, how the learned trial Court has accepted the said version, is the question, which has not been answered in the order dated 23.8.2025, impugned herein. 14 2026:HHC:36559 29. Once, the suit has been withdrawn unconditionally, without mentioning the grounds upon which, the same has been withdrawn, then, the same cannot be restored merely on asking of the plaintiff, that too, on the basis of grounds, which were neither mentioned in the order, withdrawing the suit, nor in the statement, upon which, the suit was withdrawn. 30. Even otherwise, respondents No. 1 to 3, after receiving notice of the application, for restoration of the suit, have not opted to put appearance to admit or controvert the allegations, so made, in the said application. 31. Once, the suit had been withdrawn, the same ought not to have been restored, as, in the intervening period between withdrawal of the suit on 21.9.2022, and filing of restoration application on 28.8.2025, a period of about three years, has elapsed, during which, much water has flown thereafter. The person, who has asserted the claim over the subject matter of the lis, on the basis of her title, cannot be forced to remove the clouds, cast upon her title. 15 2026:HHC:36559 32. In the present case, the petitioner has taken a stand that defendants No. 1 to 3 had executed a registered sale deed, bearing No. 1617/2020, dated 24.11.2020, whereby the suit land was transferred in favour of respondents No. 11 and 12, for valuable consideration, and respondents No. 11 and 12, in the present case, were not impleaded as party in the suit. Thereafter, respondents No. 11 and 12, Naveen Chand and Praveen Chand had executed the sale deed, bearing No. 8/2023, dated 4.8.2023, in favour of the present petitioner. 33. All these facts have been asserted by the petitioner to demonstrate that she is an aggrieved person, who is having the locus to file the present petition, challenging the order dated 29.8.2025, by virtue of which, the suit titled as ‘Subhash Chand versus Sanjay Kumar & others’, has been ordered to be restored, to its original number. 34. Even otherwise, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the stand of the petitioner has been accepted by the learned trial Court, as gospel truth. In 16 2026:HHC:36559 the application for restoration of the suit, the plaintiff has taken the plea of some oral settlement, however, the particulars of the same, admittedly, have not been mentioned, in his statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn. Situation would have been otherwise, had the plaintiff mentioned the terms of the oral settlement, in his statement. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn, on the basis of compromise. 35. The application for restoration has been filed, on 7.3.2023. In the said application, apart from the alleged oral settlement, the plaintiff has also taken the plea that the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn, on account of negligence of the counsel. If the said plea is accepted without any supporting evidence, then, there would be no end to litigation, as every litigant would first withdraw the suit, and subsequently approach the Court for restoration of the suit, on the grounds, as taken in the present application. 36. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has erroneously exercised the jurisdiction, vested in it, and 17 2026:HHC:36559 the order, dated 28.8.2025, by virtue of which, the suit has been ordered to be restored, does not withstand judicial scrutiny before this Court. 37. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.8.2025, is set aside. 38. There shall be no order as to costs. 39. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 40. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 27.8.2026 Judge Kalpana