2011 (1) TMI 175 - SC - Indian Laws

Withdrawal of suit change of mind appellant filed Suit No. 1301 of 1997 before the Court of Civil Judge - He filed an application to withdraw the suit Subsequently, he changed his mind and before an order could be passed in the withdrawal application he filed an application praying for withdrawal of the earlier withdrawal application Held that - Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter of general principle prohibition cannot be presumed - the application praying for withdrawal of the withdrawal application was maintainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of filing an application for withdrawal of withdrawal application.
2. Interpretation of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Precedents on the permissibility of procedures in court.

Issue 1: Validity of filing an application for withdrawal of withdrawal application
The appellant initially filed an application to withdraw a suit but later sought to withdraw the withdrawal application before any order was passed. The High Court held the second application as not maintainable, stating that once the suit withdrawal application is filed, the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that rules of procedure are meant to serve justice. The Court cited the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants inherent powers to the court to ensure justice. The Court interpreted this provision to allow every procedure that aids in justice unless expressly prohibited, rather than presuming every procedure as prohibited unless permitted.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The Supreme Court referred to the observation of Mr. Justice Mahmood in Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey, highlighting that courts should not assume procedures as prohibited unless expressly provided in the law. The Court reiterated that prohibition cannot be presumed as a general principle. Further, the Court cited the decision in Raj Narain Saxena Vs. Bhim Sen & others, where a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the view that procedures should be considered permissible unless specifically prohibited. Based on these precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the application for withdrawal of the withdrawal application was maintainable, emphasizing the importance of interpreting Section 151 liberally to facilitate justice.

Issue 3: Precedents on the permissibility of procedures in court
The Supreme Court aligned its decision with the precedents set by the Allahabad High Court in previous cases. By emphasizing that courts should interpret procedures liberally to uphold justice, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal. The Court directed that the suit should proceed and be decided on its merits expeditiously, indicating a strong stance on ensuring fair and just proceedings in line with the principles of law and justice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in this case highlights the importance of interpreting procedural rules in a manner that serves justice and upholds the principles of fairness and equity in legal proceedings. The Court's decision to allow the application for withdrawal of the withdrawal application underscores the need to prioritize the pursuit of justice over strict procedural formalities, as guided by the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and established legal precedents.