JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has filed this revision petition against the order dated 7.10.2002, passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Rohroo in Civil Suit No. 30/ 1 of 2002, whereby he allowed application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC filed by the respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). 2. Admitted facts of this case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the land comprising khasra No. 255/1, measuring 0-03-40 Hect, situate at Chack-Batara, Tehsil Rohroo, District Shimla by virtue of adverse possession. His possession is continuous, uninterrupted as well as to the knowledge of the owner. Further decree restraining the defendant from interfering in the lawful and settled possession of the plaintiff in any manner was also prayed for. 3. When put to notice, defendant filed written statement as also counter claim. Parties after framing of issues have examined oral evidence and have also produced documentary evidence. An application dated 5.10.2002 was filed by the plaintiff. At this stage, it may be noted that plaintiff had concluded his evidence and defendant has also examined as many as eight witnesses, when this application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC as aforesaid was filed. By means of following order, this application .was allowed :— "In view of the prayer made suit is permitted to be withdrawn subject to the cost of Rs. 1,000 and the plaintiff would be at liberty to institute the suit on deposit the cost if limitation available. File, after completion, be consigned to records." 4. In the aforesaid background, present revision petition has been filed by the defendant. Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant forcefully urged that provision of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC has been followed more in its breach than compliance by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order. According to him while considering application, trial Court was required to have satisfied itself that the suit of the plaintiff was bound to fail by reason of some formal defect or that there sufficient grounds for allowing the application to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit or a part thereof. Another plea urged by Mr. According to him while considering application, trial Court was required to have satisfied itself that the suit of the plaintiff was bound to fail by reason of some formal defect or that there sufficient grounds for allowing the application to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit or a part thereof. Another plea urged by Mr. Verma was that assuming for the sake of argument, without conceding that it could have allowed to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit as prayed for on her behalf, counter claim filed by his client by necessary implication has already been thrown out as no order to continue with the same has been passed. Reliance was placed by him on the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A(4) of the CPC. 5. On the other hand both these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Per him impugned order suffers from no infirmity within the ambit of Section 115 of the CPC so as to call for interference in this revision petition. According to him order may be sketchy, but when a reference is made to the facts on record existing on the file of the trial Court, no exception can be taken to the said order which needs to be upheld and he prayed for the dismissal of the revision. 6. After having considered respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties and having gone through the record, as well as reasons to be recorded hereinafter there is no doubt in my mind that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Admittedly plaintiff had concluded his evidence. Defendant had also examined as many as eight witnesses. It was in this background that application under Orde 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC came to be filed before the trial Court that has been allowed. It appears that on 5.10.2002, when this application was filed, it was stated on behalf of the defendant that reply is not to be filed. Even in the absence of the reply, trial Court was required to examine the matter as per provisions of law and then it should have recorded its satisfaction/dis-satisfaction to allow or not to allow the application of the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit. 8. Even in the absence of the reply, trial Court was required to examine the matter as per provisions of law and then it should have recorded its satisfaction/dis-satisfaction to allow or not to allow the application of the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit. 8. Word satisfaction in Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC assumes significance when it is read in conjunction with sub-clauses (a) and (b) of this rule. For ready reference provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(3) sub-clauses (a) and (b) are extracted herein below : (3) Where the Court is satisfied,— (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim." 9. One of the recognised and acknowledged mode of recording satisfaction is by advancing reasons for passing an order. This suggests the application of mind by the authority concerned. It is by now well settled by numerous decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, as well as High Court including this Court, that even in administrative and quasi-judicial orders, process of reasoning suggests application of mind by the competent authority who is called upon to decide a matter. 10. Because while considering the application of the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, trial Court was exercising judicial powers enjoined upon it by law; on a perusal of the impugned order by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the trial Court had recorded its satisfaction in passing the said order. I may hasten to add that brevity is the beauty and essence of the impugned order without their being any legal basis to sustain the same. 11. While recording satisfaction/dis-satisfaction under the aforesaid provisions of law, trial Court had further to ensure that requirement of either sub-clauses (a) and/or (b) extracted herein above were in existence. It was only in either or both of the two situations existing that the order could be passed. 11. While recording satisfaction/dis-satisfaction under the aforesaid provisions of law, trial Court had further to ensure that requirement of either sub-clauses (a) and/or (b) extracted herein above were in existence. It was only in either or both of the two situations existing that the order could be passed. Again on a plain reading of the impugned order, there is nothing to suggest existence of both or either of the two clauses (a) or (b) supra. From whatever point this case may be viewed, impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. In this behalf it may also be noted that an order under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is not to be passed as a matter of course or routinely, and thereby permitting a litigant like plaintiffs prayer to file a fresh suit. In the case of the present nature, suit was nearing completion. No doubt discretion is vested in a court to deal with an application at any stage of the suit. But discretion has to be exercised on sound principles as well as judiciously. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has been passed by the trial Court without application of mind in a most perfunctory and slipshod manner. That being so that it can not be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 13. It appears that while passing the impugned order, learned trial Court was in post haste to get rid of the suit. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments without conceding as was urged by Mr. Verma that the withdrawal of the suit could be allowed, trial court ought to have dealt with the counter claim filed by the defendant. No order has been passed on it. Only inference that can be drawn from this is that the trial court only intended to get rid of the suit forgetting that there was counter claim also which has to be disposed of and dealt with like a regular suit as per provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the CPC. On this legal aspect of the case, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff fairly stated that trial Court ought to have proceeded with the counter claim as per law. 14. No other point is urged. 15. On this legal aspect of the case, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff fairly stated that trial Court ought to have proceeded with the counter claim as per law. 14. No other point is urged. 15. This revision petition was taken up for final disposal after it was formally admitted on the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties and was also heard as prayed for by them. 16. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and thereby the order passed by learned Sub Judge (1) at Rohroo, on application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is hereby quashed and set aside. What falls from this is that the civil suit titled Dhani Ram v Kanku, shall stand restored to its original number and date. Trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter by hearing the application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, filed by the plaintiff and dispose it of after hearing the parties. At the same time trial Court shall further proceed to deal with the counter claim filed by the defendant even if the application of the plaintiff is allowed. Costs on the parties. 17. Parties present through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.6.2003. Registry will ensure that record is transmitted to the trial Court well before the date fixed. It hardly needs to be clarified that trial Court will not issue any fresh notice to the parties as date has been fixed by this Court.