The plaintiff filed a revision petition under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. (!) The Trial Court observed that evidence recording was concluded and the technical defect regarding the orientation of the defendant's house in the sketch was not necessary to decide the actual dispute. (!) The Trial Court held that since the suit had reached the final stage, it was not proper to permit withdrawal and filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action. (!) The High Court noted that allowing withdrawal at the fag end of a trial leads to multiplicity of proceedings, which courts are not in a position to afford unless special circumstances warrant. (!) The High Court upheld the rejection of the application as justified due to the precious time spent on the trial, dismissing the reliance placed on the Apex Court judgment (AIR 1968 SC 111). (!) The revision petition was dismissed. (!)

SIDDAGANGAPPA vs THIMMANNA - 2002 Supreme(Kar) 387

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(Kar) 387

V.GOPALA GOWDA
SIDDAGANGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THIMMANNA – Respondent

Advocates:
K.Hanumantharayappa, PATEL D.KARIGOWDA

Judgement Key Points

The plaintiff filed a revision petition under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. (!)
The Trial Court observed that evidence recording was concluded and the technical defect regarding the orientation of the defendant's house in the sketch was not necessary to decide the actual dispute. (!)
The Trial Court held that since the suit had reached the final stage, it was not proper to permit withdrawal and filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action. (!)
The High Court noted that allowing withdrawal at the fag end of a trial leads to multiplicity of proceedings, which courts are not in a position to afford unless special circumstances warrant. (!)
The High Court upheld the rejection of the application as justified due to the precious time spent on the trial, dismissing the reliance placed on the Apex Court judgment (AIR 1968 SC 111). (!)
The revision petition was dismissed. (!)

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 26-5-2000 rejecting I. A. XII in O. S. No. 157/96, the plaintiff has presented this revision petition. The said application was filed under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) C. P. C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

( 2 ) I Have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under revision. The trial Court observed that recording of evidence was concluded on 4-2-2000 and instead of arguing the case, the plaintiff filed I. A. XI seeking amendment of plaint sketch and the said application was rejected on 9-3-2000. Thereafter I. A. XII was filed. The trial Court found that the technical defect sought to be made-out by the plaintiff in not showing the new house of the defendant having door towards East in the sketch, is not at all necessary to decide the actual dispute relating to the space in front of the houses of both the parties. It was also found that at this stage it was not proper to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and to permit to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. Since the suit has reached the final stage, the trial Court has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(Kar) 387

V.GOPALA GOWDASIDDAGANGAPPA – AppellantVersusTHIMMANNA – Respondent

V.GOPALA GOWDA
SIDDAGANGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THIMMANNA – Respondent