9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC seeking permission to withdraw suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction, sought to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action after the trial court dismissed their suit. The first Appellate Court also dismissed their application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC, leading to the revision before the High Court. 2. Legal Submissions: The counsel for the petitioners argued that the first Appellate Court erred in dismissing the application without considering the technical omission regarding the identity of the predecessors in title of both parties. They relied on a previous decision to support their contention that permission to withdraw a suit can be granted even without a formal defect if there are sufficient grounds. 3. Legal Provisions: Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC allows a suit to be withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh on sufficient grounds. The term "sufficient grounds" must be interpreted in conjunction with formal defects, and the permission to withdraw a suit should be granted cautiously, especially if it would deprive the defendant of the lower court's favorable decision. 4. Criteria for Withdrawal: The Court must be satisfied that the suit must fail due to a formal defect or there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. Formal defects refer to prescribed procedural errors, while other sufficient grounds should not be due to the plaintiff's fault. 5. Court's Discretion: Granting permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one is at the Court's discretion. The Court must provide reasons for granting such permission, but no obligation exists for explaining a refusal. 6. Decision: The High Court found that the technical omission regarding the identity of the predecessors in title did not constitute a formal defect. The appellate Court's decision to dismiss the application was upheld, considering that allowing the withdrawal would affect the respondent's vested rights under the lower court's decision. 7. Precedent: The respondent cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that withdrawal of a suit at the appellate stage should not nullify vested rights under a decree unless a strong case is presented. The High Court agreed with this principle and affirmed the dismissal of the application. 8. Final Ruling: The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the lower appellate Court's decision. The counsel's argument for interference was deemed unwarranted, and no costs were awarded. The Court also clarified that the observations made need not influence the appellate Court's decision on the appeal's merits. 9. Additional Evidence: The petitioner's counsel requested the Court to acknowledge the right to approach the appellate Court for presenting additional evidence. However, the Court stated that such a request would be decided by the appellate Court independently and in accordance with the law. 10. Conclusion: The High Court's judgment emphasized the careful consideration required when seeking to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one, especially when it may impact the rights of the opposing party. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the limitations on withdrawing suits to prevent prejudice to the other party.
|
