SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Cal) 186

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA
DEBASHIS SINGHA ROY – Appellant
Versus
TARAPADA ROY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
KOUSHIK ROY, MAHADEV GHOSH, SADANANDA GANGULY, SAKTI NATH MOOKERJEE, SUBRATA GHOSH

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, J.

( 1 ) THE question involved in this revisional application is whether a partition suit should normally be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh when the plaintiffs alleged that the same suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-description of the suit lands with particulars as to it's nature, character, boundaries, measurement and areas.

( 2 ) ORDER 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code is clear in its terms that where a suit must fail by reasons of some formal defects or where 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, there the court may on such terms as it thinks fit permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit or such part of claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. This rule is disctinct from res judicata and based on public policy of the law to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This rule is meant to apply in cases where there is defect in form of the suit and because of such defect the suit will fait or where there are other sufficient grounds for allowing th









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top