2002 (6) TMI 608 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of the suit by the respondent.
2. Advantage gained by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings.
3. Prior finding regarding possession of the suit premises.
4. Nature of the impugned order as a non-speaking order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of the Suit by the Respondent:
The petitioners challenged the trial court's order dated 21st January 2000, which allowed the respondent to withdraw Civil Suit No. 250/1999 unconditionally. The petitioners argued that the withdrawal should have been conditional, particularly requiring the restoration of possession of the suit premises to them. The court noted that under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaintiff can abandon a suit as a matter of right without the court's permission, except for costs and preclusion from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in K.S. Bhoopathy v. Kokila, which affirmed the plaintiff's right to withdraw a suit unconditionally.

2. Advantage Gained by the Respondent During the Pendency of the Proceedings:
The petitioners contended that the respondent gained possession of the suit premises during the pendency of the proceedings due to an appellate court order and should not be allowed to withdraw the suit without restoring possession to the petitioners. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in The Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy, which held that if a party gains an advantage due to a court order during the pendency of proceedings, they should not be allowed to withdraw the suit without restoring the status quo. However, the court found that the petitioners had already handed over possession of the premises to the owners, M/s. Mahadkar Construction Pvt. Ltd., on 29th April 1999, and thus had no interest in the premises when the respondent took possession on 17th May 1999.

3. Prior Finding Regarding Possession of the Suit Premises:
The petitioners argued that the trial court had previously found in their favor regarding possession of the suit premises, and this finding should not be nullified by allowing the respondent to withdraw the suit. The court observed that any favorable finding for the petitioners before 29th April 1999 did not entitle them to seek restoration of possession from the respondent, as they had already relinquished possession to the owners. The court emphasized that the petitioners' own statements confirmed they had no interest in the premises after 29th April 1999.

4. Nature of the Impugned Order as a Non-Speaking Order:
The petitioners claimed that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, lacking reasons for allowing the withdrawal of the suit. The court clarified that the order did provide a reason, referencing paragraph 8 of the application for withdrawal, which indicated the respondent's intent to file a fresh suit on a different cause of action. The court concluded that the trial court's order was not passed by illegal or improper exercise of jurisdiction and did not require a detailed explanation for allowing unconditional withdrawal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing the respondent to withdraw the suit unconditionally. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the advantage gained by the respondent, the prior finding of possession, or the nature of the impugned order. The petitioners' challenge was deemed unsubstantial, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.