9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. 1978. Their suit remained pending for about four years when it was ultimately dismissed on 29th Nov. 1982. An appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial court was filed on 14th Dec. 1982. On 31st Jan. 1983, the plaintiffs moved an application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Reply to the application was filed on 19th Sept. 1983. Without getting any orders on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four years, and when the plaintiffs failed there, they moved the present application for withdrawal as a last resort, and that too after about two years of the filing of the appeal. Under these circumstances, argued the learned counsel, the suit could not be allowed to be withdrawn in appeal. In support of his contention he referred to K. Chinna Vaira Thevar v. S. Vaira Thevar AIR 1983 Made 160; J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. In Jubedan Begum's case. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the words at any time in O. 23, R. 1, C.P.C., would apply to the suit pending in the trial Court. Once the decree is passed by the trial Court, certain rights are vested in the party in whose favour the suit is decided. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to withdraw the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this stage. It is for the plaintiffs to move any application before the lower appellate court, which will be disposed of in accordance with law. 5. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 6. The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the District Judge, Gurgaon on 15th Feb. 1986. The appeal be now decided on merits, in accordance with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
