- (1.) A perusal of the judgments passed by the two Courts below shows that defendant No.1 Surender Jain was found to be in unauthorised possession of the suit land and his plea of adverse possession has been rejected. However, the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been rejected on the technical grounds.
(2.) In view of the aforesaid fact, Shri Suvineet Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant states that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be permitted to be withdrawn on account of aforesaid technical defect with a liberty to file a fresh suit seeking possession of the suit land from the defendants. This limited prayer of the plaintiffs is not opposed by Shri B.R.Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, the main suit filed by the plaintiffs is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to them to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action by pleading better facts. If any such suit is filed by the plaintiffs, then the defendants shall be at liberty to raise all such pleas which are available to them in accordance with law. In a subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs, any findings recorded by the two Courts below for and against the plaintiffs or the defendants shall not be taken into consideration.;