Full Text
Translation output
A-36
% 08.7.2011
Present: Mr.Hargovind Jha,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.P.Singh,Advocate for the respondent.no.4.
+ CM No.12209/2011 (for exemption)in CM(M)No.749/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject tojust exceptions.
CM(M)No.749/2011
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
09.12.2010. Present suit had been filed by nine plaintiffs. It was a suit seeking a decree of declaration, cancellation of two relinquishment deeds; relief of possession, mandatory and permanent injunction had also been sought against the defendant.
Out of the nine plaintiffs two plaintiffs on 07.1.2009 had appeared before the court and sought permission of the court to withdraw the suit. The plaintiff Rajeev .P. Dube (petitioner before this
Court) and Aditya. P.Dube had got their statements recorded on oath seeking permission of the court to withdraw the suit. This statement further states that Rajeev.P.Dube was also the power of attorney holder of the other plaintiffs namely plaintiffs no.4 to 6,8 and 9. After permission had been granted by the court to withdraw the suit and the suit had been withdrawn the present two applications had been filed ofthe petitioner herein. The first
CM(M)No.749/2011 Page 1 of2
2011:DHC:7779
/ •¥- iry application had sought revival of the suit and the second application had been filed under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.l.
Once the suit had been permitted to be withdrawn on the specific statement made by the plaintiff there is no provision oflaw which permits the revival of the suit. On a specific query made to learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard he also has no answer.
The impugned order dated 09.12.2010 in no manner calls for any interference. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 ofthe
Constitution of India has to be exercised only if there is patent illegality in the impugned order or if a prick is felt in the conscience of the Court. No such occasion has arisen. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
JULY 08,2011 nandan
CM(M)No.749/2011 Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:7779
% 08.7.2011
Present: Mr.Hargovind Jha,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.P.Singh,Advocate for the respondent.no.4.
+ CM No.12209/2011 (for exemption)in CM(M)No.749/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject tojust exceptions.
CM(M)No.749/2011
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
09.12.2010. Present suit had been filed by nine plaintiffs. It was a suit seeking a decree of declaration, cancellation of two relinquishment deeds; relief of possession, mandatory and permanent injunction had also been sought against the defendant.
Out of the nine plaintiffs two plaintiffs on 07.1.2009 had appeared before the court and sought permission of the court to withdraw the suit. The plaintiff Rajeev .P. Dube (petitioner before this
Court) and Aditya. P.Dube had got their statements recorded on oath seeking permission of the court to withdraw the suit. This statement further states that Rajeev.P.Dube was also the power of attorney holder of the other plaintiffs namely plaintiffs no.4 to 6,8 and 9. After permission had been granted by the court to withdraw the suit and the suit had been withdrawn the present two applications had been filed ofthe petitioner herein. The first
CM(M)No.749/2011 Page 1 of2
2011:DHC:7779
/ •¥- iry application had sought revival of the suit and the second application had been filed under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.l.
Once the suit had been permitted to be withdrawn on the specific statement made by the plaintiff there is no provision oflaw which permits the revival of the suit. On a specific query made to learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard he also has no answer.
The impugned order dated 09.12.2010 in no manner calls for any interference. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 ofthe
Constitution of India has to be exercised only if there is patent illegality in the impugned order or if a prick is felt in the conscience of the Court. No such occasion has arisen. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J.
JULY 08,2011 nandan
CM(M)No.749/2011 Page 2 of2
2011:DHC:7779
JUDGMENT