ORDER : 1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2] This review petition has been filed the petitioners under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read with Chapter 4 Rule 13 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 for review of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 dated 13.06.2022 whereby the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a Civil Suit. Subsequently, a Civil Suit No.803-A/2022 was also filed by the respondent No.1 stating that he has been directed by the High Court to file the civil suit and when an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed, the trial Court relying upon the order passed by this Court on 13.06.2022 in W.P. No.11457 of 2022, which led the petitioners to file a Writ Appeal No.1043 of 2022, which was decided on 07.09.2022 whereby the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the proper remedy available to the appellants is to file a review petition. Petitioners’ grievance is that the word liberty to file a civil suit has been misused by the respondent No.1 and thus, the present review petition has come to be filed. The delay in filing the review petition has already been condoned by this Court on 11.10.2022 and the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 has already been stayed. 3] Senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings of the civil suit, which has been filed by the respondent No.1 in paras 4 and 9 and also to the reply filed by the plaintiff to the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial Court in para 3 and it is submitted that the plaintiff has clearly misused the liberty extended by this Court in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 and has in fact played a fraud with the Court in making such averments in the civil suit and interpreting in such manner the order passed by this Court to suit his purpose. Thus, it is submitted that in such circumstances, when the order has been misused by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in filing the civil suit, it deserves to be recalled. Thus, it is submitted that in such circumstances, when the order has been misused by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in filing the civil suit, it deserves to be recalled. Senior counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. M.K. Sarkar reported as (2010) 2 SCC 59 paras 15 and 16. Thus, it is submitted that the order passed by this Court be recalled and the petition be allowed with costs. 4] Prayer is opposed by Shri Chhabra, senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff and it is submitted that in impugned order, there does not appear to be any illegality or error on the face of the record. However, Shri Chhabra has submitted that due to inadvertence only on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff in the trial court, in drafting the plaint, it has been mentioned that a direction has been made by this Court to file the civil suit and since the copy of the order was also filed along with the civil suit, the trial Court has rightly interpreted the order. 5] Shri Chhabra has also relied upon D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed and South Eastern Railway House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Visakhapatnam and others Vs. Attili Appala Swamy and others reported as (2015) 2 SCC 390 ; Jagdish Arora and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported as MANU/MP/1184/2021; Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others reported as (1997) 8 SCC 715 ); and Chandrakant Pandurang Shingade and another Vs. Walchand Gulabchand Bora and another reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1669. 6] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7] So far as the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 dated 13.06.2022 is concerned, the same reads as under:- “Counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file a civil suit. Prayer appears reasonable. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.” 8] At this juncture, it would also be apt to refer to the decision in the case of M.K. Sarkar, (supra) the relevant paras of the same read as under:- “15. Prayer appears reasonable. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.” 8] At this juncture, it would also be apt to refer to the decision in the case of M.K. Sarkar, (supra) the relevant paras of the same read as under:- “15. When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A court or tribunal, before directing “consideration” of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a “live” issue or whether it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue. If it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct “consideration” without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct “consideration” without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect.” (emphasis supplied) 9] So far as the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in para 9 of the plaint is concerned, the same reads as under:- ^^9- ;g fd oknh dks bl okn dks izLrqr djus dk dkj.k tc izfroknh Øa1 dk uke jktLok izdj.kksa esa ntZ fd;k tc fnukad 10-05-2007 dks oknh chekj gksus ls vLirky esa HkrhZ jgk ,oa ogak ls LokLF; gksus ds ckn oknxzLrks LFkku ij x;k ,oa mls izfroknh Ø-3 }kjk fd;s x;s voS/k dk;Z dh tkudkjh feyh rc fnukad 13-06-2022 dks tc ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dks bl ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa ;g izdj.k izLrqr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k rc&rd ls izfrfnu mRIkUu gqvk gksdj oknh dk okn vanj fe;kn is'k gSA^ (emphasis supplied) 10] Whereas, para 3 of the reply filed by the plaintiff to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as under:- ^^3- ;g fd] bl rjg ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bUnkSj ds funsZ’kkuqlkj oknh }kjk ;g okn ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k le;kof/k es izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ;fn izdj.k vof/k fo/kku ds ckgj gksrk rks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; oknh dks okn izLrqr djus dh vuqefr iznku ugh djrkA bl rjg izfroknh }kjk tks rF; bl vkosnu i= esa mBk;s x;s gS mudk fujkdj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa gh fd;k tk pqdk gS ,oa bl rjg oknh dk fu;r le;kof/k esa izLrqr gSA^^ (emphasis supplied) 11] A perusal of the aforesaid reply filed by the plaintiff makes it more than clear that the plaintiff has tried to mislead the trial Court by stating that a direction has been issued by this Court to the plaintiff to file a civil suit. It is equally surprising that the plaintiff has also stated that had the suit been barred by limitation, the High Court would never have permitted to file the civil suit and thus, it is also stated that the issue of limitation has already been decided by the High Court and, hence, the suit is within limitation. It is equally surprising that the plaintiff has also stated that had the suit been barred by limitation, the High Court would never have permitted to file the civil suit and thus, it is also stated that the issue of limitation has already been decided by the High Court and, hence, the suit is within limitation. What is really surprising is the manner in which the trial Court has also read the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 dated 13.06.2022. 12] A perusal of the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, inter alia, following observations have been made:- ^^,slh fLFkfr esa ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds varxZr okn dk vof/kckgk gksus ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ¼Mh½ lhihlh ds micak vkd`"V ugha gksrs gSA blds vfrfjDro oknh }kjk vius okni= ds iSjk Ø-09 es ifjlhek izkjaHk gksus ds laca/k esa Li"V vfHkopu fd;k gS fd izfroknh Ø- ds jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ gks tkus ds laca/k esa tkudkjh izkIr gksus ij mlds }kjk fnukad 13-06-22 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izdj.k izLrqr fd;k Fkk ,oa mDr fnuakd ls gh fujarj ls gh fujarj okndkj.k mRiUu gks jgk gSA pwafd oknh }kjk orZeku okn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB bankSj ds }kjk nh x;h vuqefr ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls ifjlhek ij fopkj djrs gq, Hkh oknh dk okn orZeku ifjn`'; esa ifjlhek vof/k ckgk gksuk izrhr ugh gksrk gS lkFk gh ifjlhek laca/kh vkifŸk ds fujkdj.k gsrq U;k;ky; i`Fkd ls okniz'Uk fojfpr dj mDr vkifRr dk fujkdj.k djus gasrq l{ke gSA^^ 13] On perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 as also the order dated 17.08.2022, passed by the trial Court leaves no manner of doubt, that the plaintiff has played fraud with the Court by misusing the order passed by this court by misinterpreting it to its own ulterior purpose, which cannot be countenanced under any circumstances and such practice is highly deprecated. 14] It is seen that scores of cases of diverse nature are routinely withdrawn by the parties for whatever the reasons, some with liberty, and some without any liberty. 14] It is seen that scores of cases of diverse nature are routinely withdrawn by the parties for whatever the reasons, some with liberty, and some without any liberty. When a liberty is reserved to a party to take recourse of the appropriate alternate remedy, and this court is of the opinion that period of limitation might be an issue, in certain cases where no prejudice is likely to cause to any other party and the delay is negligible, it is directed to the appropriate authority to decide the case on merits, whereas, in other cases, where the delay is an issue affecting the rights of other parties, it is always directed that the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition be excluded from the period of limitation. In all those cases where a writ petition is simply withdrawn with liberty to take recourse of the appropriate remedy, it is intrinsic that the appropriate authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law, including the issue of limitation, as filing of a writ petition and simply withdrawing it can never tantamount to condonation of delay, and any other interpretation of such order would only amount to fraud being played on the court for ulterior motives. 15] In view of the same, the learned judge of the trial court has also erred in interpreting the order passed by this court, and although the order passed by this Court on 13.06.2022 in W.P. No.11457 of 2022 was an innocuous order, not conferring any right or entitlement to any party, however, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which, the aforesaid order has been exploited by the plaintiff, the same is liable to be and is hereby modified to the extent that now the W.P. No.11457 of 2022 stands dismissed as withdrawn, however, without any liberty. 16] For the reasons assigned hereinabove, an exemplary cost of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is also imposed on the respondent Ram Gopal Kumawat which shall be deposited in the account of President and Secretary H.C. Employees Union H.C. (Account No.63006406008, Branch Code No. 30528, IFSC No. SBIN0030528, CIF No. 73003108919) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and obtain a receipt. The acknowledgement be filed before the Registry failing which, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioner as a land revenue, in accordance with law. 17] With the aforesaid, review petition stands disposed of.