A plaintiff cannot be permitted to withdraw a suit with liberty to sue afresh when the allegations made in the plaint are false and misleading.

1. BY the impugned order being no. 13 dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the Ld. Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in T.S. No. 2300 of 2009, two applications filed by the respective parties were disposed of by the Learned Trial Judge. BY the first part of the said order, the plaintiffs prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to sue afresh on the self same cause of action, was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge. BY the latter part of the impugned order the defendants application for reference under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the Learned Trial Judge. Since this part of the impugned order is appealable under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the defendant does not want to challenge the said part of the impugned order before this Court. Leave has been sought for permitting the defendant to file an appeal for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. In my view no such leave is necessary for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. It is thus made clear that the order which is passed herein, will not affect the defendants right to challenge that part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum.

2. MR. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, very candidly submitted before this Court that he would restrict his submission with regard to the propriety of the first part of the impugned order by which the plaintiffs prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to sue afresh, was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge.

Heard Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider as to how far the Learned Trail Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.

3. THE plaintiff filed the said suit inter alia praying for a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and each of them their men, agents and servants from dispossessing the plaintiff from his tenancy described in schedule A, B and C of the plaint without due process of law and from interfering and/or obstructing with the use and enjoyment thereof by the plaintiff on/or from disturbing smooth running of the business therein by the plaintiff.

4. THE said suit was filed on the basis of the cause of action allegedly arose on 18- 04-2009, 25-04-2009 and 28-04-2009. The plaintiff claimed that the initial threat to dispossess the plaintiff was given by the defendant no.4 claiming to be the transferee owner who sent one Dilip Barik to the plaintiff for demanding one lakh rupees as a condition for granting rent receipt in favour of the plaintiff. It was further stated therein that on 25-04-2009 the plaintiff approached the defendant no.4 to give inspection of the documents of his title, if any, but the said defendant flatly refused. It was further stated therein that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 being approached, refused to entertain the plaintiff by stating that the defendant no.4 is a very dangerous man and if the amount asked by him is not paid, the plaintiff may be dispossessed from his tenancy. It was further stated therein that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in collusion and conspiracy with each other, hatched out a plan to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and an attempt was made by them in this regard on 28-04-2009, but they were unsuccessful. Since they threatened the plaintiff by saying that they would come again to dispossess him, the instant suit was filed. The plaint was duly verified by the plaintiff and the same was also supported by the affidavit. The above statements constituting the cause of action of the said suit was verified and affirmed by the plaintiff as true to his knowledge.

Subsequently the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction claiming interim protection in the suit on the self-same allegation. The