ORDER : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to order dated 18.4.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) read with S. 151 CPC, seeking therein permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh, came to be dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the parties to the suit are joint owner-in-possession of the suit land. Father of the parties executed a Will dated 19.5.2003 in favour of plaintiff, defendant and proforma defendant No. 1. After execution of Will dated 19.5.2003, on account of uncalled for behavior of the defendant, father of the plaintiff cancelled the Will dated 19.5.2003 and executed afresh Will dated 3.4.2008. Proforma defendant, Krishna Devi also died during pendency of the suit and as such, she also executed Will dated 1.8.2012 in favour of plaintiff. After six years of filing of suit, plaintiff moved an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) read with S. 151 CPC, seeking therein permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh on same cause of action on the ground that there is apprehension that suit may fail as no proper service has been effected. Plaintiff averred in the application that his counsel failed to institute the suit against proper parties, as such, he should not suffer for lapse on the part of counsel. 3. Aforesaid prayer came to be resisted by the defendant, who claimed before learned Court below that the plaintiff was fully aware of the fact that Smt. Asha Devi was not having any authority to defend the suit on behalf of her husband, as such, application at this stage, cannot be allowed. Besides above, defendant also claimed that since suit is fixed for final orders, application in question cannot be allowed to be filed at this belated stage. 4. Besides above, defendant also claimed that since suit is fixed for final orders, application in question cannot be allowed to be filed at this belated stage. 4. Learned Court below, having taken note of the ground taken in the application, that since no proper service has been effected, suit would fail, dismissed the application on the ground that non-joinder of proper parties cannot be said to be a formal defect, rather said defect can be cured by way of filing an appropriate application for impleadment/amendment of plaint. 5. This Court, having carefully perused the reasoning assigned by learned Court below, while dismissing application in question, sees no occasion to interfere with the same, because, by now it is well settled that non-joinder or non-description of suit land is not a formal defect, rather same can be cured by way of filing an appropriate application. In the case at hand, precise ground of the plaintiff is that since his counsel failed to institute suit against property party, suit filed by him may fail, but such defect, if any, can be cured by filing an application for impleadment of parties or by way of amendment of the plaint. 6. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is dismissed. Impugned order, is upheld. Needless to say, application, if any, for impleadment/amendment shall be considered in accordance with law by the learned Court below, in case such an application is filed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.