A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE praintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit against the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing a portion of the premises. Pending the suit interim injunction was granted. However, in C. R. P. 1292/87 the petitioner was permitted to continue the plastering, flooring, fixation of shutters, electrical and other sanitary fittings and the like to make the construction habitable. Thereafter an interlocutory application was filed under Order 23, Rule 1 sub-clause 3 praying to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit which was already filed as O. S. 2404/88 in the Court of the Hnd Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in respect of the subject matter of this suit. The defendants in the counter filed to the said i. A. averred that notice under Sec. 685 of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act (Act for short) is not necessary prior to the institution of the suit. The petitioner s case was that a suit will fail for the reason of non-issuance of statutory notice. The said I. A. was dismissed stating as under :"keeping in view The principlc laid down in the last two cases cited it can be said that the plaintiff has already accrued the advantage of order passed in suit in interlocutory application without restoring the status quo ante he should not be permitted to withdraw it as the bent fit to obtain was subject to result of suit. Finally, the plaintiff has already filed a suit without obtaining permission of the court. This Court cannot grant permission with retrospective effect and fill up the lacuna. The petitioner has prayed in bis petition to grant permission to withdrawn the suit and permit him to file a fresh suit (which is) O. S. 2404/88----- -. . . . . . . . . . . The petitioner has remained silent and not informed the court of appeal that a suit is already filed keeping in view the background I do not think it proper to grant permission to withdraw. "

( 2 ) IT is this order that is impugned by the plaintiff in this revision contending that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the I. A. seeking permission to withdraw the srit. Filing of a fresh suit cannot be a ground for rejecting the I. A. as it is not necessary that permission to institute a fresh suit must precede any filing of the fresh suit. The case laws sought to be relied on to reinforce the said contentions are as follows :

( 3 ) IN Ammini Kutty vs. George Abraham it svas held as follows:"civil P. C. (5 of 1908) 0. 23, Rule 1: Withdrawal of suit: permission for, can be granted even after the institution of a second suit and not only when such a suit is to be instituted. "

( 4 ) IN L. f. C. of India vs. Escorts Limited - a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:"section 29 (1) which is also relevant for the purposes of this case is as follows : 29 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sec. 28 and sec. 47 and notwithstanding anything contained in any other:provision of this Act or the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, a person resident outside India (whether a citizen of India or not) or a person who is not a citizen of India but is resident in India, or a company (other than a banking company; which is not incorporated under any law in force in India or in which the non-resident interest is more than forty per cent, or any branch of such company, shall not, except, with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank (a) carry on in India, or establish in India a branch, office or other place of business for carrying on any activity of a trading, commercial or industrial nature, other than an activity for the carrying on of which permission oi the Reserve Bank has been obtained under Sec. 28; or (b) acquire the whole or any part of any undertaking in India of any person or company carrying on any trade, commerce or industry or purchase the shares in India in any such company. Section 29 (2) makes prov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document