IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the order of dismissal for non-prosecution in the interest of doing complete justice between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated December 08, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldia, in connection with Money Suit No.06 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court exercised power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by recalling the order dated March 29, 2023, and restoring the suit. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution at the instance of the plaintiff/opposite party. The learned court held that the Money Suit had been filed for a money claim of Rs.68,68,746.61/-. On an assurance given by the defendants/petitioners that they would repay all the dues, the plaintiff withdrew the suit for non-prosecution.

3. The plaintiff was examined by the learned trial court before the order dismissing the suit for non-prosecution had been passed. Subsequently, on or about 19th April, 2023, an application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for recall of the order dated March 29, 2023 and for restoration of the suit. The ground taken was that a meeting was held between the parties on April 04, 2023, but the defendants denied to pay off the dues of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendants threatened the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff claimed to have acted in good faith and wanted to resolve the problem. Thus, the plaintiff was persuaded to withdraw the suit. The subsequent mala fide action of the defendants compelled the plaintiff to file an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for recalling of the order of the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution.

5. The learned court was of the view that in such backdrop of the case, justice would be sub served if the application was allowed and the order of dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-prosecution was recalled. The learned court observed that the plaintiff would not deliberately withdraw his suit, unless there was some talk of compromise or assurance of the payment by the defendants. The application dated March 29, 2023, on the basis of which the suit was withdrawn and dismissed for non-prosecution, clearly recorded that there were talks of settlement and there was no necessity to proceed with the suit.

6. Accordingly, when the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and not on any merit, the learned court held that the inherent power should be exercised by recalling the order of dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution.

7. Mr. Krishnendu Goopta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that filing of a fresh suit on the self-same cause of action was barred. Thus, question of restoring the Money Suit would not arise. The suit was withdrawn as not pressed without any liberty to file afresh on the selfsame cause of action. Thus, the inherent power of the court could not be exercised to negate the applicability of Order 23 Rule 1 sub-Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned court could not have exercised power by invoking inherent jurisdiction to restore the said suit for further consideration and adjudication.

8. In the facts of the case, it appears that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution when the plaintiff prayed for withdrawal of the suit. Such prayer was made in view of the talks of settlement and an oral assurance of compromise between the parties. The suit was at the initial stage when the application for withdrawal was filed. The learned court, upon examining PW1/plaintiff dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. The application for withdrawal clearly indicated that the said step was taken by the plaintiff in view of the assurance given by the defendants that the money claimed by the plaintiff to be due and payable, would be paid by the defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants held a meeting on April 04, 2023, and the defendant withdraw from such assurance. On the other hand, the plaintiff was also threatened. Immediately, the plaintiff came back to the court and filed an