ORDER
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. He is proceeded ex-parte in these proceedings, as it has been reported by the Registry that service is complete.
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at some length.
3. This revision is directed against the order dated 20th May, 1984, vide which the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ajnala, granted liberty to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. Relevant part of the impugned order reads as under:-
“….Notice of the application was given to the opposite party, who filed written reply stating therein that the suit cannot be withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit on the alleged technicalities. In my opinion, the allegations of the plaintiff that original owner could not be impleaded seems to be a genuine and the case is likely to fail on his ground. In view of this, the suit is allowed be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. Documents be returned to the parties, who filed the same against proper receipt.’
The challenge to the above order by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that permission ought not have been granted to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit, as that tentamounts to filling up a lacuna left in the suit.
4. This argument is without any merit. The Court exercises wide jurisdiction under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant leave to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, where the suit is likely to fail on account of certain basic or legal infirmities.
5. As noticed in the order, the suit was one filed for declaration and injunction. In the suit, it was prayed that plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute as well as for other part of the land by way of adverse possession as he was in possession for more than 30 years and the defendant has no right or interest in the said property. Challenge was made to the order dated 30th July, 1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Amritsar. The owner of the land Shri Pritam Singh against whom adverse possession was raised sought to be impleaded as one of the defendants that too at the initial stage of the suit, as such, leave to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action was prayed for.
6. This request has been allowed. The impugned order is in consonance with the provisions of Order 23 and the jurisdiction vested in the Court in that regard. Moreover, plaintiff was burdened with costs as back as in 1984.
7. I See no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.