9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petitioner's application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 2. Lower court's refusal to grant permission for withdrawal with liberty. 3. Lower court's dismissal of the suit without granting liberty to file a fresh suit. 4. Interpretation of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Comparison with previous judgments regarding withdrawal of suits with permission to file fresh suits. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a suit seeking a declaration that a wall was common to both parties and obtained an interim injunction initially. Later, the injunction was vacated, leading the petitioner to apply for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The lower court, however, granted permission to withdraw the suit but denied the liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the grounds mentioned were sufficient for the grant of leave to withdraw the suit with liberty. 2. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The reason for withdrawal was the withdrawal of the interim injunction, which was not deemed a valid ground for a fresh suit. The lower court's decision to deny liberty for a fresh suit was upheld based on the lack of substantial grounds for instituting a new suit. 3. However, the court found fault with the lower court's approach in dismissing the suit without granting liberty for a fresh suit. The court emphasized that when a petitioner seeks to withdraw a suit with permission to file a fresh suit, the court cannot dismiss the suit without providing the requested liberty. Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted that the application for withdrawal and permission for a fresh suit should be treated as a whole, and the court must either reject or allow the entire prayer. 4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that the court must not separate the withdrawal and permission for a fresh suit. It is crucial to either reject or grant the entire prayer to maintain the plaintiff's rights and prevent undue loss. The court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation and underscored the importance of upholding the petitioner's right to seek permission for a fresh suit. 5. The court distinguished the present case from previous judgments cited by the respondents, emphasizing that the lower court's order lacked clarity and failed to follow the correct procedure. The court set aside the lower court's decision, directing the restoration of the suit for further proceedings on merits. The judgment highlighted the necessity of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that petitioners are not deprived of their rights during the withdrawal of suits with permission for fresh filings.
|
