9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he suit. The 1st defendant claimed that ₹ 2958.50 and interest was due and there was no bar for recovery. The second defendant admitted having sent the certificate to the Village Officer, Kudlu, to recover the above amount as per the requisition he had from the 1st defendant. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit which was affirmed by the Sub Judge, Kasaragod, in appeal, A.S. No. 73 of 1984, by judgment dated 10-3-1987 which is challenged in this Second Appeal. 3. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents: 4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was granted an agricultural loan by the 1st defendant on 17-1-1975. Ext. B3 showed that the last payment made by the plaintiff was on 1-6-1977. The requisition under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits it would be a bar. xxx xxx xxx If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. x x x If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. 7. No doubt, under Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier suit on the same cause of action had been withdrawn without the leave of court. But, where the subsequent suit was pending when the earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn, abandoned or as not pressed, the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1, in terms, would be inapplicable. 9. In Mangi Lal v. Radha Mohan, AIR 1930 Lah 599 it was held :-- 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23, Rule 1, refers to permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit after the first one has been withdrawn. Order 23, Rule 1, cannot be read so as to bar a suit which has already been instituted before the other suit has been abandoned or dismissed. The rule is clear and can only be applied to suits instituted after the withdrawal or abandonment of previous suits . I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
