P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Arshia Khatoon representing Smt. Sesharajyam and Mr. M. V. Nagaraj representing Mr. Rajalingam, the Counsel representing both the parties in the CRP.

( 2 ) THE CRP is filed against an order dated 26-7-1999 made in IA No. 9 of 1999 in OS No. 504 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 C. PC to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court below by an order dated 26-7-1999 had allowed the application in part granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit, but refusing liberty to file a fresh suit. The revision petitioner aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present CRP.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows:the revision petitioner-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,531. 48 ps. , and the registration certificate of the firm was not readily available on the date of presentation of the plaint and on oral enquiry with the Registrar of Firms, the petitioner was informed that the registration was completed and after the petitioner had got the registration certificate of the firm, it was found that the date of registration was subsequent to the filing of the suit and since by the date of the institution of the suit, the limitation did not expire and as much as the cause of action survived. The petitioner filed IA No. 9 of 1999 in OS No. 506 of 1991 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to withdraw the suit for the purpose of filing a fresh suit. The suit was filed on 1-6-1991 and the office had taken an objection regarding the registration of the firm and since the objection had been complied with, the suit was numbered on 13-11-1991. The Court below, no doubt, observed that only after the office had taken objection, the petitioner-plaintiff had taken steps for registration of firm by submitting the necessary statement to the Registrar of Finns on 24-6-1991. It is also clear from the facts of the case that there is undue delay on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff in making an application to permit the petitioner to withdraw the suit giving liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Court below allowed the application only in part granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit, but liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action was specifically refused.

( 5 ) MS. Arshia Khatoon, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had contended that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity since an order of this nature granting permission to withdraw and further rejecting liberty to institute a fresh suit is unsustainable in law especially in the light of the view expressed by this Court in CRP No. 691 of 1969, dated 25-2-1970. The learned" Counsel also had contended that even otherwise under Order XXIII, Rule 1 (3) CPC, the present case falls under the expression "that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim". The learned Counsel also had submitted that in matters of this nature, the Courts are expected to adopt a liberal approach instead of adopting a very narrow and technical approach.

( 6 ) MR. Nagaraj, the learned Counsel representing the respondent on the contrary had contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error and the Court below is justified in making such an order in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel also had submitted that Order XXIII, Rule 1 (3) (a) and (b) CPC are to be read together in ejusdem generis and even if the expression sufficient ground had to be construed liberally, those grounds should be analogous or similar to some formal defect or the like nature specified in Order XXIII, Rule 1 (3) (a) CPC. The learned Counsel also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document