ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant civil revision petition the petitioner namely Firdous Ali has impugned the order/judgment dated 5.6.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Nagar in C.F.A No. 4/2018 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has set aside the order/judgment dated 13.3.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar and has allowed the petition of the respondents/plaintiffs filed under Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. for conditional withdrawal of Suit No. 43 of 2017.
2. Precisely facts relevant for disposal of the instant civil revision petition are that the present respondents/ plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the trial court regarding compensation amount of land of the present petitioner and respondents which was acquired by the Government for construction/extension of K.K.H situated at Jaffarabad Nagar.
3. During pendency of the aforesaid suit before the trial court the respondents/plaintif fs filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. for conditional withdrawal of their suit in the trial court on 26.2.2018 stating therein a petition regarding compensation amount of acquired land has been filed before the Collector Nagar by the respondents/ plaintif fs and in pursuance of said application the plaintif fs do not want plead/prosecute the suit and want to withdraw the same with condition that after disposal of application of the respondents/plaintif fs which is subjudice before the Collector , the plaintif fs/ respondents will file fresh suit if so required .
4. The present petitioner/defendant No. 1 contested the aforesaid application filed Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. by filing replication and, the land trial court after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application filed Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. vide order dated 13.03.2018.
The aforesaid judgment/ order passed by the learned trial court was challenged in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Nagar through a civil 1st appeal by the present respondents/ plaintiffs which was allowed by the learned 1st appellate court vide the impugned judgment/order dated 5.6.2018 , hence this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of case as such the impugned order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the plaintif fs/respondents have failed to mentioned formal defects in the suit in their application filed under Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. therefore the aforesaid application of the plaintif fs/respondents was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and the learned 1st appellate court has committed illegality while allowing the petition of the present respondents/plaintif fs filed Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P .C.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the instant revision petition and controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the impugned order passed by the leaned 1st appellate court is well reasoned and has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge Nagar by proper appreciating of the relevant provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs further argued that an application regarding suit amount is subjudice before the Collector/D.C. Nagar, therefore the plaintiffs have to wait till disposal of the aforesaid application by Collector Nagar, therefore the respondents/plaintiffs wanted to withdraw their suit and the learned 1st appellate court has rightly allowed the application filed Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. by the respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record particularly contents of application filed under Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P .C. by the respondents/plaintif fs for withdrawal of suit.
8. From perusal of contents of aforesaid application filed by the respondents/plaintif fs in the trial court it appears that the plaintif fs have averred in the application that the plaintif fs/ respondents have filed an application before the Collector Land Acquisition Nagar regarding disputed compensation amount and in pursuance of said application the plaintif fs do not want to proceed with suit rather the plaintif fs/ respondents want to withdraw suit with permission of court to file fresh suit after disposal of the aforesaid application by the Collector , if so required.
8(sic). I have gone through the contents of plaint and application filed under Order XXIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., which provides that court if satisfied that the suit would fail by reasons of some formal defects or there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit may grant permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. In this connection I am satisfied that although the plaint of the plaintiffs do not suffer from formal defects, but the plaintiffs have raised/agitated another sufficient ground in their application that an application regarding subject matter of suit is pending adjudication before the learned Collector Nagar and the plaintiffs do not want to proceed with the suit till disposal of aforesaid application by Collector and I ,am of the considered opinion that it is a sufficient ground for conditional withdrawal of their suit as court cannot compel the plaintiffs to not withdraw their suit.
9. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any error of law or facts in the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court calling interference by this court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The instant revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.