D.R. Deshmukh, J. - (1.)INVOKING the civil revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth 'the Code') the applicants/plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 24-3-2008 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2003, whereby the application of the applicants/plaintiffs under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code dated 12-3-2008 seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit was dismissed.
(2.)IT is not disputed that in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2003 evidence of the parties has not begun.
Brief facts are that the applicants/plaintiffs had instituted the aforesaid suit on 12-11-2003 against the non-applicants/defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction of Saw Mill over the suit land. After the death of the plaintiff Laxmi Chand Gupta, the applicants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Chand Gupta, were substituted. The suit was founded on the averments that Laxmi Chand Gupta is the adopted son of Late Motilal Gupta and on the basis of a registered Will dated 20-6-1970 executed by Motilal Gupta is the sole title-holder of the suit land, i.e., plot No. 1053/1 area 2.19 acres situated in Deviganj Road, Vijay Marg, Kedarpur, Ambikapur. It was pleaded that on 11-11-2003, the defendants had, with an intent to establish a Saw Mill started digging the plinth on the suit land in the portion marked with green in the map annexed to the plaint. In view of this unauthorised the illegal act of the defendants, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so was prayed for.

(3.)THE defendants denying the averments of the plaintiff in toto resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the averment that the Saw Mill of the applicants/plaintiffs was established on the suit land in the year 1948. Father of the non-applicants Late Kashichand Gupta and Late Satyanarayan Gupta had title to the suit land by birth. It was further pleaded that in an earlier suit Civil Suit No. 2-A/98 the plaintiff had admitted that he neither had title nor possession over the suit land. It was specifically denied that on 11-11-2003 the defendants had started digging work on the suit land to establish a Saw Mill.
;