JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, a, disaffirmative order, stands, rendered, by the learned trial Judge concerned, upon, the plaintiffs' application, cast, under the provisions, of, Order 23 Rule 1 (3), read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, (i) where through, they strived, to, withdraw Civil Suit No. 182 of 2015, with, liberty reserved to institute, a, fresh suit, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (ii) given, a, formal defect, arising, from, the, suit khasra numbers, being erroneously mentioned, in the plaint, to, fall within Phati, Jagatsukh, whereas, the relevant khasra numbers, rather falling, in, Phati Nasogi. 2. The afore application warrants its being dismissed, as earlier thereto, an alike motion stood cast, before the learned trial Judge concerned, motion whereof, stood dismissed, as withdrawn, (i) and, hence the order, of, dismissal as withdrawn, as made, upon, an alike hereat earlier motion, renders hence, the, extant petition made before the learned trial Judge concerned, to, beget attractions thereon, of, the, barring principle, of, estoppel, (ii) whereupon, a, latter/subsequent motion, warranted, its, dismissal, as, aptly done, hence, hence by the learned trial Judge. 3. Be that as it may, without going into the factum, that, the afore espoused, formal defect, hence holding any aura of tenacity, (a) yet, when through recoursing, the provisions, of, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC hence the plaintiffs/applicants, may make good or cure the afore defect, and, also when they may therein also include all their properties, as, occur in Phati Nasogi, hence, for obviating, the, attraction(s), of, the principle of estoppel, vis-a-vis, the subsequent thereto instituted suit arising from non inclusion(s) thereof, in, the extant suit, (b) whereupon, the plaintiff will not be entailed with any prejudice, upon, the extant application, ordered, to, be being dismissed. 4. In view of the above observations, and, without interfering, with the impugned verdict, the instant petition, is, disposed of, and, the petitioners, are, directed to make a motion, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, before the learned trial Judge concerned, and, the latter is directed, to make, within four weeks thereafter make, a, decision thereon, hence in accordance with law,. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned the trial judge concerned, shall decide, the matter uninfluenced, by any observation, made hereinabove. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned the trial judge concerned, shall decide, the matter uninfluenced, by any observation, made hereinabove. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, a, disaffirmative order, stands, rendered, by the learned trial Judge concerned, upon, the plaintiffs' application, cast, under the provisions, of, Order 23 Rule 1 (3), read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, (i) where through, they strived, to, withdraw Civil Suit No. 182 of 2015, with, liberty reserved to institute, a, fresh suit, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (ii) given, a, formal defect, arising, from, the, suit khasra numbers, being erroneously mentioned, in the plaint, to, fall within Phati, Jagatsukh, whereas, the relevant khasra numbers, rather falling, in, Phati Nasogi. 2. The afore application warrants its being dismissed, as earlier thereto, an alike motion stood cast, before the learned trial Judge concerned, motion whereof, stood dismissed, as withdrawn, (i) and, hence the order, of, dismissal as withdrawn, as made, upon, an alike hereat earlier motion, renders hence, the, extant petition made before the learned trial Judge concerned, to, beget attractions thereon, of, the, barring principle, of, estoppel, (ii) whereupon, a, latter/subsequent motion, warranted, its, dismissal, as, aptly done, hence, hence by the learned trial Judge. 3. Be that as it may, without going into the factum, that, the afore espoused, formal defect, hence holding any aura of tenacity, (a) yet, when through recoursing, the provisions, of, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC hence the plaintiffs/applicants, may make good or cure the afore defect, and, also when they may therein also include all their properties, as, occur in Phati Nasogi, hence, for obviating, the, attraction(s), of, the principle of estoppel, vis-a-vis, the subsequent thereto instituted suit arising from non inclusion(s) thereof, in, the extant suit, (b) whereupon, the plaintiff will not be entailed with any prejudice, upon, the extant application, ordered, to, be being dismissed. 4. In view of the above observations, and, without interfering, with the impugned verdict, the instant petition, is, disposed of, and, the petitioners, are, directed to make a motion, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, before the learned trial Judge concerned, and, the latter is directed, to make, within four weeks thereafter make, a, decision thereon, hence in accordance with law,. In view of the above observations, and, without interfering, with the impugned verdict, the instant petition, is, disposed of, and, the petitioners, are, directed to make a motion, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, before the learned trial Judge concerned, and, the latter is directed, to make, within four weeks thereafter make, a, decision thereon, hence in accordance with law,. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned the trial judge concerned, shall decide, the matter uninfluenced, by any observation, made hereinabove.