The consent of the co-plaintiff is not necessary for withdrawal from the suit when one of several plaintiffs has an independent right to relief and the abandonment of their claim does not affect the right to relief of the co-plaintiff(s).

1. The petitioner and the opposite party no.1 are co-plaintiffs in Title Suit No.54 of 2005, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, wherein opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2.

2. It is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The co-plaintiffs had been employed under the opposite party no.2 for more than three decades. While in service, they had purchased substantial shares of the opposite party no.2. However, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the attempt of the opposite party no.2 to compel them to surrender their shares, the suit had been instituted.

3. Since the nature of relief claimed in the suit would have a bearing on the outcome of this revisional application, the prayers are set out hereinbelow :

“a) Declaration that Articles 11 and 14 of the Articles of Association of the defendant No.1 and 2 respectively are illegal, unsustainable and wrongful;

b) Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to retain and possess their respective shareholding of Equity shares of the defendant No.2 forever as owners of those shares and that the defendants are forbidden in law to compel the plaintiffs to surrender such share holdings on any ground including the ground of termination of service, if any;

c) Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to and the defendants are duty bound to pay all dividends, benefits and entitlements attached in the equity shares belonging to the plaintiffs;

d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them and/or their respective managements from treating the equity shares belonging to the plaintiffs surrendered and from transferring and/or alienating the said shares to any other person or persons in any manner whatsoever and/or from striking out the names of the plaintiffs from the Register of Member of the defendant No.2;

e) Receiver;

f) Costs;

g) And/or to pass such other or further order or orders to which the plaintiffs are entitled to and as to the Ld. Court may seem fit and proper; ”

4. The co-plaintiffs had the occasion to carry an order dated March 31, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge in appeal (Misc. Appeal No.278 of 2008) before the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court, South 24 Parganas, at Alipore. The defendants too, feeling aggrieved by a portion of the said order, preferred an appeal (Misc. Appeal No.196 of 2008). The appeals are pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.

5. The petitioner due to personal inconveniences did not wish to proceed further with the plaintiffs’ appeal and, accordingly, filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code) for expunging his name from the records of such appeal. By order no, 16 dated 16.1.2010, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the prayer of the petitioner and directed that his name be expunged.

6. During pendency of the appeals, the inter-se differences between the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were amicably settled, out of Court, and the petitioner did not wish to proceed with the suit. Accordingly, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code before the learned Trial Judge for deletion of his name from the array of plaintiffs of T.S. No. 54 of 2005.

7. The learned Trial Judge considered the said application on March 15, 2010 and passed the following order:

“Both parties file hazira.

Today is fixed for hearing of application under O.1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff No.2 Mihir Kumar Talukdar on 10.3.10. Since original record was forwarded to the Court of ld. Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, 12th Court, Alipore in connection with Misc. Appeal No.196/08 and the same has not yet been received back by this court, it is not possible to dispose of the instant application.

Let the application under O.1 R 19(2) C.P.C. be heard on receipt of Original r