( 1 ) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 133 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy intended to withdraw the suit. He filed LA. No. 38 of 2004 under Order XXHI Rule 1 C. P. C. , for this purpose. The Trial Court, through its order dated 21-7-2004, directed the defendants in the suit to remove the wall said to have been constructed by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. It also refused the leave to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action; and ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn with costs. Feeling aggrieved by the observations made and conditions imposed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed this civil revision petition.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the petitioner herein for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents. He filed I. A. No. 38 of 2004 stating inter alia that in view of the report submitted by the Commissioner appointed by the Court, with the assistance of Deputy Director of Survey and Land records, he no longer intends to proceed with the suit and sought permission to withdraw it, with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action or any cause of action that may arise after the date of commissioner s report viz. , 10-07-2003. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit resisting the application. According to them, the petitioner has undertaken certain constructions in the suit schedule property on the strength of an order of temporary injunction obtained in the suit and he cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit abruptly. They also pleaded that they incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 20,000/- to defend themselves and that the petitioner be required to make good the same. The trial Court passed an order as mentioned above.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that it is always in the discretion of the plaintiff to withdraw a suit reserving the liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the suit and the trial Court was not justified in making observations and imposing conditions as it did, in the order under revision. He submits that the question of placing any restrictions on such rights arises if only a decree was passed in the suit of subsequent proceedings in the form of appeal etc. have ensued.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is in the discretion of the Court to accord permission to withdraw a suit before it, and to impose conditions, as are necessary, to protect the interests of the parties. He contends that it is always competent for a Court to undo the damage that has been caused to the defendant by the plaintiff, while according permission to withdraw the suit. Both the counsel have relied upon Judgments rendered by the supreme Court as well as this Court in support of their contentions.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was undergone certain stages, including the consideration of application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 c. P. C. , appointment of a Commissioner and submission of a report by the Commissioner etcetera. When the petitioner wanted to withdraw the suit by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 C. P. C. , it was resisted by the respondents on the grounds referred to above: In its order, the trial Court has taken note of the contentions of both the parties, made certain observations ane refused to grant liberty to the petitioner to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The relevant observations read as under:"the counsel for the respondent has argued that under the guise of orders of injunction the petitioner/plaintiff has raised structures in the disputed open plot, and therefore he may be ordered to remove the illegal structures. Though there is no meaning in removing the raised walls which can be made use by the petitioner/plaintiff in order to prevent further complication of claiming any right by the defendants, I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document