JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 2828.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 2829.CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexure P/1 to P/5 are taken on record. CR No. 702 of 2012 Defendant no. 1 Sunita Chhokra has filed this revision petition by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn order dated 2.12.2011, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat thereby allowing application moved by respondents no. 1 to 4/plaintiffs for withdrawing the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. 2. Respondents no. 1 to 4 have filed suit against defendant no. 1 petitioner and proforma respondent no. 5 as defendant no. 2 seeking declaration and permanent injunction vide plaint Annexure P/1. Sale deed dated 22.8.1997 in favour of defendant no. 1 and sale deed dated 8.7.2003 by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 have been challenged in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit property. 3. Plaintiffs moved application Annexure P/2 for withdrawing suit with liberty to file fresh suit alleging that defendant no. 2 has further sold the suit property to Raj Rani Garg who has also further sold it to another person who has taken possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs forcibly and therefore, the plaintiffs want to file fresh suit for possession of the suit land by impleading aforesaid subsequent vendees as well. 4. Defendant no. 1 – petitioner by filing reply Annexure P/3 opposed the aforesaid application. 5. Trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 has allowed the said application Annexure P/2 and thereby dismissed the suit as withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that plaintiffs had already moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for impleading Raj Rani Garg as party to the suit and the said application was still pending disposal when application Annexure P/2 was moved for withdrawing suit with liberty to file fresh suit. It was also contended that subsequent vendee of Raj Rani Garg could also be impleaded as party to the suit and relief of possession could also be sought by amendment of plaint and there was no sufficient ground to permit withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. It was also argued that for granting any such liberty, there has to be formal defect in the suit which was not even specified in application Annexure P/2. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Somalraju Chinnammi vs. Samanthu Sivaji Ganesh & Anr., 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 395 (A.P.); judgment of Bombay High Court in Veerbhadrappa s/o Mahadappa Rachatee vs. Mahalingappa & Ors., 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 547 (Bombay) and also judgment of this Court in Dalbir Kaur vs. Jagir Kaur and another, AIR 2003 NOC 40 (PUNJ. & HAR.) 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. There is no quarrel with legal position that for granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit, the court has to be satisfied that there is formal defect in the suit. In the instant case, however, the formal defect in the suit is writ large. The plaintiffs in their plaint have sought declaration and permanent injunction only. However, the plaintiffs now are admittedly not in possession of the suit property. Consequently, they have to claim the relief of possession of the suit property. Suit for declaration and injunction alone would fail on account of form of the suit. Thus, there is defect in the form of the suit. This formal defect entitled the plaintiffs to seek permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Counsel for the petitioner contended that by amendment of plaint, the plaintiffs had already prayed for relief of possession also. However, the said application for amendment of plaint has not been allowed or disposed of. Consequently, the suit at present was for declaration and injunction only which is not maintainable in the present form because the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. Consequently, there being defect in the form of the suit, it is a formal defect which is sufficient to permit the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. 9. Consequently, there being defect in the form of the suit, it is a formal defect which is sufficient to permit the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground to interfere with impugned order of the trial court although for some different reasons. The revision petition is, thus, meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. --------------