' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against order, dated 10-5-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in C.M.
Application No,587 of 2000 in Civil Revision No,300 of 1999.
' The respondents instituted a civil suit in the Court of Qazi, Jhalawan, Khuzdar, against the appellants, for declaration through partition of the suit property as described in the title of the plaint. The trial Court framed necessary issues, on the divergent pleadings of the parties and recorded their evidence. By judgment and decree, dated 12-5-1999, the suit of the respondents was dismissed. Therefore, they preferred an appeal before Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar, which set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed their suit by judgment and decree, dated 13-8-1999. The appellants filed Civil Revision No,300 of 1999 thereagainst. During pendency of the afore-stated civil revision, the respondents moved C.M. Application No,587 of 2000 for permitting them to withdraw the civil suit and to file a fresh one inasmuch as certain Khewat/Khatoni and Khasra numbers were inadvertently omitted therein. The learned Judge of the High Court by the impugned order, dated 10-5-2000 allowed the respondents to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one. Consequently, the judgments and decrees dated 12-5-1999 and 30-8-1999 passed by Qazi, Khuzdar and Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar were set aside subject to payment of Rs,5,000.
Hence this appeals, by leave of the Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the provisions of Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C., 1908, were not adhered to by the learned Judge in Chambers while permitting the respondents to withdraw their civil suit and to file a fresh one in the absence of any formal r fect. It was next contended that non-mention of particulars of the suit property by respondents could not be treated to be a formal defect within the meaning of said provision of law and that withdrawal of the civil suit ought not have been allowed, by the High Court at a belated stage. The learned counsel relied on the case of Saeed-ur-Rehman Moula and another v. Abdur Rehman and another PLD 1961 Dacca 844 in support of his submission.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the civil suit was justifiably permitted by the High Court to be withdrawn at the revisional stage. The precise description of the suit property, being subject-matter, had been clearly mentioned in the title of the suit but there was an inadvertent omission to specify certain other particulars such as Khewat, Khatoni and Khasra numbers of the same in its prayer clause.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record with their assistance. We find that the respondents in their civil suit for declaration and partition had described the suit property with its boundaries. However, Khewat, Khatoni and Khasra numbers of the fields were not mentioned in the body and prayer clause of the plaint. In the circumstances, the High Court was quite justified in allowing them to withdraw the civil suit and to file a fresh one in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in respect of the same cause of action and the same property. It is now well-settled that in terms of Order XXIII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
Permission to withdraw a civil suit for the purpose of filing a fresh one can be granted by the appellate and revisional Court at any stage of proceedings. Reference may usefully be made to the cases of Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab and others PLD 2003 SC 979, Qamar Zaman and others v. Musammir Shah 2000 SCM R 1730 and Ismail v. Fida Ali PLD 1965 SC 634. Withdrawal of a suit with permission to institute another one is not restricted only to the cases of formal defect. The scope of Order XXIII, rulel, C.P.C. Is wide enough to empower the Court to grant such permission for some other sufficient grounds. We have been informed that on the basis of fresh suit, the evidence of the parties has also been recorded and only announcement of judgment in the case is awaited. In our opinion, the High. Court has already done substantial justice between the parties in order to shorten the litigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.