9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (11) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents carry on business at Delhi while the appellants carry on business at Malout Mandi. District Faridkot. There have been dealings between the appellants and the respondents. On 21st August, 1978 the parties entered into an agreement which may be called an arbitration agreement whereby they agreed that in case of disputes relating to their dealings, the same would be settled through the arbitration of Delhi Hindustani Merchantile Association, Delhi. The respondents on 15th May, 1979, filed a claim before the said association for ₹ 34,297.40 against the appellants. The appellants on 9th June, 1979 wrote a letter to the respondents sending a draft of ₹ 1000/- and disputing the claim. He also prayed for adjournment of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act in the court at Giddarbaha, District Faridkot on 20-12-1979 wherein he obtained an ex parte injunction but on contest the injunction was vacated. An appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge at Faridkot but the appeal was also dismissed on 3rd April 1980. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit filed at Giddarbaha was also dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code on 8th August, 1980. Learned counsel for the appellants however states that the proceedings for restoration under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code are still pending in the court at Giddarbaha. It appears that after the dismissal of the injunction application and the suit by the courts at Giddarbaha the plaintiffs-appellants filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly the plaintiffs filed the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 on 8th October, 1979 wherein an ex parte injunction sought for by them was issued by the trial court. But this application was dismissed as being not pressed on 21st March, 1980. The question therefore is whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to file a fresh application for injunction on the same grounds on which the previous application was dismissed. Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code reads as under:- 1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim: (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim; Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r part of a claim under sub-rule (1) or to withdraw under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiffs, 3. Under sub-rule (4) a plaintiff is precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of the claim withdrawn by him. Thus if a plaintiff withdraws a suit, he is not entitled to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Similarly if the plaintiff files an application for the grant of a temporary injunction and after notice to the opposite party who has filed a reply and during the course of arguments the plaintiff withdraws the application for temporary injunction, it appears that the plaintiff is debarred from instituting a fresh application unless there has been change of circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
