- (1.) This Civil revision is concluded in favour of the petitioners by as many as three judgments of this Court. The plaintiff-respondents instituted the suit, from which the proceedings arise, against the present defendant-petitioners as far back as 30th of December, 1969. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that despite the grant of as many as 16 adjournments to the plaintiff-respondents, they bad not adduced any evidence in support of their case. However, on November 24, 1973, a statement was made by the counsel praying for the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one under order 23, rule 1 on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents. The learned trial Court in a cryptic order, without recording adequate reasons or specifying the alleged technical errors in the suit, allowed the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The un-exhibited documents were directed to be returned. This order is under challenge by way of this revision.
(2.) Mr. S.C. Kapoor on behalf of the petitioners places reliance on the exhaustive observations made by Dua, J. in Chhindo v. Mela Singh and others, 1967 2 ILR(P&H) 6. Identical views have been expressed by Mahajan, J (as his Lordship then was in Badam v. Smt. Lakhpati,1967 PunLR 554 and by Pandit, J. in Dalip Singh v. Rajinder Singh and others, 1972 AIR(P&H) 279. All the three judgments are virtually on all fours with the facts of the present case.
(3.) Mr. A. K. Jaiswal on behalf of the respondents has been unable to counter the argument on behalf of the petitioners or cite any judgment to the contrary. It has been merely contended that the discretion exercised by the trial Court may not be interfered with.;