2012 (12) TMI 1205 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to revoke withdrawal of suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Applicability of Section 151 CPC in revoking the withdrawal.
3. Judicial precedents on the matter.

Summary:

1. Right to Revoke Withdrawal of Suit:
The primary issue is whether a plaintiff can revoke their application to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 11 of 2010 sought a permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent the alienation of disputed property. They initially moved to withdraw the suit citing a compromise but later filed an application to revoke this withdrawal. The trial court allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the suit, and the revisional court upheld this decision, relying on the precedent that once a withdrawal is filed, the suit is deemed abandoned.

2. Applicability of Section 151 CPC:
The plaintiffs argued that their right to revoke the withdrawal application is supported by Section 151 CPC, which allows the court to exercise its inherent powers to ensure justice. The Supreme Court decision in Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra (2011) supports this view, allowing withdrawal of the abandonment application under Section 151 CPC. The revisional court, however, did not consider this, relying instead on a conflicting precedent.

3. Judicial Precedents:
The judgment discusses conflicting precedents on the matter. The trial court and revisional court relied on Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam v. Abdul Qadir (AIR 1966 All 318), which held that once a suit is withdrawn, it is deemed abandoned. However, this was overruled by the Full Bench in Sunni Central Board v. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad (2010 ADJ I), which allowed for the revocation of a withdrawal application under Section 151 CPC. The Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Bhoopathy v. Kokila (AIR 2000 SC 2132) was also discussed, which pertains to withdrawal with permission to file a fresh suit, and does not directly conflict with the Rajendra Prasad Gupta ruling.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the orders of the trial and revisional courts, holding that the plaintiffs have the right to revoke their withdrawal application before the court passes a formal order. The case was remanded to the trial court to reconsider the applications in light of the observations made, ensuring that the plaintiffs' rights are preserved until a formal order is passed. The court emphasized the necessity of judicial orders to finalize abandonment to prevent potential fraud or misrepresentation.