9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restraining, him from interfering with the) plaintiff's rights. 2. After issues were framed the plaintiffs applied to amend their plaint sot as to make the Secretary of State a party. This was refused and a date was fixed for hearing. Before that date the plaintiffs appeared on 20th June 1920, before the Court and stated that; they did not desire to proceed with the suit. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply. Further, defendant 2 had placed stones on that part of the land which was sold to him by the Secretary of State and had refused to remove them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for possession of the whole plot, cancellation of the sale, and an injunction. This second suit was instituted before a Subordinate Judge, 2nd Class, and the first suit was in the Munsiif's Court. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. It is obvious that Order 23, Rule 1 refers to permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit after the first one has been withdrawn. It appears to me that the section cannot be read so as to bar a suit which has already been instituted before the other suit had been abandoned or dismissed. The learned District Judge has said that no authority has been quoted on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mple, it will still be open to the appellants before the District Judge to urge that the second suit is barred under Section 16, Civil P.C., and any other legal point will be open, apart from the question whether the suit is barred by reason of Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The court-fee on appeal in this Court will be refunded as the remand is under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. Parties will bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
