The court upheld the preclusion of filing a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC and correctly interpreted the provisions of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ). This appeal is directed against the order dated 17. 11. 1981 passed in Suit No. 29-A of 1977 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant, M/s Kishan Chand surendra Kumar moved a petition under Section 20 of the arbitration Act in which it is incorporated that the respondent gave the contract of development of its land measuring 666 bighas and 17 biswas situated in karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi for the purpose of a residential colony. A cheque for Rs. 50,000. 00 was given to the appellant, but it was dishonoured. Subsequently the respondent paid two cheques of Rs. 5,000. 00 each to the appellant.

( 2 ) ON 19. 11. 1967 the appellant learnt that the respondent had entered into arrangement for development of the same land with another contractor. Under these circumstances the appellant alleged that the respondent had committed breach of agreement dated 18. 5. 1967 and asserted that the agreement contained an arbitration clause. Under these circumstances the appellant moved a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for getting the disputes referred to an arbitration.

( 3 ) THE respondent, the Delhi School Teachers cooperative House Building Society denied the existence of any agreement with the appellant.

( 4 ) ANOTHER significant feature of this case is that the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration was withdrawn by the appellant by moving an application under Order 23, Rule 1, read with Section 151 of Code of civil Procedure. The respondent had also signed the application. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn on 17. 10. 1968. No permission was,however, sought for filing a fresh petition on the same subject matter.

( 5 ) THE appellant submitted that what impelled him to withdraw the petition was that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties and according to which the respondent agreed to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 78,000. 00 or allot the work as already agreed fo under the agreement dated 18. 5. 1967. The appellant further claimed that he had executed some more work and submitted three bills to the extent of Rs. 78,000. 00 to the respondent. The appellant was paid Rs. 28,000. 00 under both the agreements. The balance,however, was not paid.

( 6 ) A petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration act was moved for reference of disputes between the parties under both the agreements dated 18. 5. 1967 and 17. 10. 1968 to the Arbitrator. The respondent however, denied existence of both the agreements and also pleaded that the petition is not maintainable as barred by time and did not disclose any cause of action. The Court framed issues on 24. 1. 1978 and partly recorded the evidence.

( 7 ) THE respondent moved an application that since the issues were legal and went to the root of the matter, therefore, these issues be tried as preliminary issues.

( 8 ) THE learned Single Judge after perusing the entire documents on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties observed that Order 23 Rule 1 (4) c. P. C. envisages that where a plaintiff abandons any suit or withdraws a suit or part of a claim without obtaining permission from the Court to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter or part of a claim, he shall be precluded from instituting a fresh suit in respect of them. Section 141 of the CPC provides that the procedure provided in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in ail proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. The Court also observed that Section 20 of the arbitration Act itself requires the registration of any petition under it as a suit. This petition was also registered as Suit No. 29-A of 1977.

( 9 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that in the present case the appellant had withdrawn the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act without obtaining permission from the Court to file a fresh one. The learned Single Judge observed that in this case when the appellant shyed away and abandoned his ca