Judgment 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order dated 5-11-2009, Annexure P6, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandigarh, vide which learned Court accepted application dated 4-6-2009 filed by the respondent-plaintiff for withdrawal of application for withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 234 dated 20-5-2004, titled as Rajeev Kharbanda v. Smt. Pushpa Devi, after the same was acted upon by the Court granting the permission to withdraw the suit and that too on an application moved after lapse of more than three years and two months, when the order for withdrawal of the suit was passed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that the present dispute is between mother and son. Husband of petitioner, namely, Arjan Dev Kharbanda died on 7-1-1993. He owned and possessed House No. 1440, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh and was residing therein along with his family including the parties to the present suit. After death of Arjan Dev Kharbanda, a family settlement had taken place among the parties on 20-6-1994 and by the said family settlement, Smt. Prem Devi, who is mother of deceased Arjan Dev Kharbanda, became owner of Vith share in the house, whereas the present petitioner became owner of 3/4th share in the house, as respondent and other son of present petitioner relinquished their shares in favour of petitioner in the said family settlement. On the basis of the said family settlement, Eestate Officer, U. T. Chandigarh, also transferred the ownership of the said house vide his memo dated 18-7- 1994 and the family settlement was acted upon by all the parties. Smt. Prem Devi, executed a sale deed dated 28-10-1997, in respect of her 1/4th share in the aforesaid house in favour of the present petitioner and hence, the present petitioner became the sole owner of the entire house. The Estate Officer also recorded 25% share of Smt. Prem Devi in favour of petitioner vide memo dated 31-12- 1997. 4-5 The present suit was filed by respondent-son against petitioner-mother restraining her from dispossessing him from the portion of the house under his occupation. The Estate Officer also recorded 25% share of Smt. Prem Devi in favour of petitioner vide memo dated 31-12- 1997. 4-5 The present suit was filed by respondent-son against petitioner-mother restraining her from dispossessing him from the portion of the house under his occupation. He also filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner to the extent of 1/4th share of the aforementioned house, denying the alleged family settlement. In the meantime, another suit was filed by the respondent in the name of her minor son, namely, Saransh Kharbanda, though the same was filed through his mother and however, respondent was also a party in the said suit. In that suit respondent defendant filed written statement admitting the claim made by his son Saransh Kharbanda. 6. During the pendency of those litigations, an application Ex. P1 was moved on behalf of respondent-plaintiff in the present suit for withdrawal of the suit, which reads as under: "That in view of the pendency of the suit titled as Saaransh Kharbanda v. Pushpa Kharbanda in the Court of Sh. Sudeep Goyal, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, the applicant/ plaintiff doeshot want to pursue the present case. The title1 of the house in question is involved in the said suit also and the issues involved in the present suit are the same which are involved in the above referred suit. Therefore, the present suit may be dismissed as withdrawn. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit be dismissed as withdrawn in the interest of justice." 7. On the basis of the said application, statement was made by counsel for the respondent plaintiff for withdrawal of the said suit on 3-12-2005, which reads as under : "In view of application filed today on behalf of the plaintiff, I withdraw the present suit." 8. Pursuant to the said statement made by counsel for the plaintiff, following order was passed by learned trial Court on 3-12-2005, Annexure P2, which reads as under : "Mr. Mukesh Mittal, Advocate, filed an application on behalf of the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff vide his separate statement withdrawn the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. In view of the statement suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed as withdrawn. A perusal of the file shows that defendant has prayed for counterclaim against the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff vide his separate statement withdrawn the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. In view of the statement suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed as withdrawn. A perusal of the file shows that defendant has prayed for counterclaim against the plaintiff. Accordingly for filing reply to the counter claim on behalf of the plaintiff, to come up on 13-12-2005." 9. Thereafter other suit, which was got filed by respondent plaintiff through his minor son was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned appellate Court and the said judgment has become final. After decision of the said suit, the present application was filed on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff for revival of the present suit. Learned trial Court allowed the said application and suit of present respondent-plaintiff was ordered to be revived. 10. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after unilateral application filed by respondent plaintiff for withdrawal of the suits was acted upon by learned trial Court and after order was passed for withdrawal of the suit as withdrawn, pursuant to the request of respondent- plaintiff, he is having no right to get the suit revived after second suit filed by his minor son in which he was also a party, was dismissed. It has been further contended that there is no provision of law under which a suit, which was already dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file another one, can be revived. 11. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff that if there is no specific provision for revival of the suit, this Court is having necessary powers to grant the liberty to respondent plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the point he has also placed reliance upon Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. V/s. Machado Brothers and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2093. He has also placed reliance upon Krishan Lal V/s. Gulab Ram, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 157 and argued that even if a suit was withdrawn without liberty, the same may be revived. 12. On the point he has also placed reliance upon Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. V/s. Machado Brothers and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2093. He has also placed reliance upon Krishan Lal V/s. Gulab Ram, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 157 and argued that even if a suit was withdrawn without liberty, the same may be revived. 12. However, in Krishan Lals case (supra) facts were that the suit was withdrawn on the basis of alleged compromise by practicing fraud as the compromise had not taken place and hence as it was a case of fraud, the suit was restored. 13. He has also placed reliance upon Rameswar Sarkar V/s. State of W. B. and others, AIR 1986 Calcutta 19. However, in that case there was a dispute that whether dispute was to be adjudicated by Arbitrator or by the Civil Court and on the wrong assumption, the suit was withdrawn for getting the dispute decided by Arbitrator and application for revival was filed on the very next date without getting the matter adjudicated from the Arbitrator and hence in view of those facts, the suit was ordered to be revived. 14. However, law is well settled that once on an unilateral request of plaintiff, the suit has been ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, after the Court had acted upon the request of the respondent plaintiff, plaintiff has no right to get the suit revived. He was having right to withdraw the application before passing of the order by the Court. 15. However, in this case order was already passed by the Court on the request of respondent plaintiff accepting his request for withdrawal of the suit and the suit was actually ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn as per order, reproduced above. 16. In Prema Chanda Barik V/s. Prafulla Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1988 Orissa 33, it was observed by Honble Orissa High Court that withdrawal of suit will become irrevocable only when the Court has applied its mind to the withdrawal of the case brought to its notice and thereafter, it would not be open to the applicant to resile from that situation. 17. 17. In Mariyamma V/s. Kochouseph, 1991 Civil Court Cases 291 (Kerala), Honble Kerala High Court observed that if on application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code, suit has been withdrawn and orders to that effect has been passed by that Court, withdrawal becomes irrevocable. 18. In another judgment in Thomas George v. Skariah Joseph and another, AIR 1973 Kerala 140 (sic) it has been held that plaintiff can withdraw his application for withdrawal of the suit before the Court takes cognizance of the earlier withdrawal application. 19. The same view has been taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Teja Singh and another V/s. Gurdial Singh and others, 1970 Current Law Journal 861, by holding that an application for withdrawal of the suit can be withdrawn at any stage before formal order is passed by the Court on such application. 20. In the present case, order was already passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit as withdrawn by unilateral request of respondent plaintiff. Merely on the ground that counsel for the defendant did not raise any objection for acceptance of request of respondent plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit, it cannot be said that the withdrawal was, in any way, conditional. No condition for withdrawal has been imposed even in the application for withdrawal filed on behalf of the respondent plaintiff. No such condition was imposed by counsel for the respondent plaintiff, while giving statement for withdrawal. No such condition was also imposed by learned trial Court while accepting the request of respondent plaintiff and while ordering for dismissal of the suit as withdrawn, vide order dated 3-12-2005, Annexure P2. 21. In view of these facts, learned trial Court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order restoring the suit filed by respondent plaintiff, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 22. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and impugned order dated 5-11-2009, passed by learned trial Court is set aside.