The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of consent for withdrawal of the suit by the original plaintiffs, who had already assigned their rights and interests in the suit property, would not benefit them, as their right and interest were already protected by a substantive separate suit filed by one of the original plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since both these petitions by the petitioners-original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 separately are filed challenging the very same order dated 30.08.2014 passed below Exhs.1 and 515 rendered in Special Civil Suit No.627 of 1988 by the 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, it is proposed to be dealt with and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18344 of 2014 – Pravinchandra Harilal Selar is original plaintiff no.1 and petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15002 of 2014 – Vinodchandra Harilal Selar is original plaintiff no.2 in Special Civil Suit No.627 of 1988.

3. As coming out from the plaint, initially plaintiff nos.1 and 2 filed a suit against defendant – Chunilal Bhulabhai Patel, who is respondent no.28 herein in both the petitions. However, there are several amendments whereby defendants have been added and joined as parties as also plaintiffs to the suit. Initially plaintiffs i.e. petitioners of both these petitions filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of agreement to sale in respect of the suit property filed against Chunilal Bhulabhai Patel, the only defendant. Later on, both the petitioners – original plaintiffs transferred their right under an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff nos.3 to 6 by an agreement dated 20.02.1991, who are respondent nos.2 to 5 herein. Therefore, they preferred an application praying to join them as plaintiff nos.3 to 6 requesting suitable corrections in the plaint as mentioned in the application, Exh.179, which came to be granted and plaintiff nos.3 to 6 came to be joined in the suit with the express consent of original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 i.e. petitioners herein acknowledging agreement dated 20.02.1991 executed in favour of plaintiff nos.3 to 6 and assigning their rights in their favour. Both the petitioners – plaintiff nos.1 and 2 have in writing given their express consent to join plaintiff nos.3 to 6 in the suit, and therefore, the amendment as prayed for vide application, Exh.179 came to be granted. Though there is further assignment of right by plaintiff nos.3 to 6 in favour of other plaintiffs also, who have also been joined as plaintiffs and so on and there are deletion of certain plaintiffs as parties, which is not in dispute, further details in respect there of is not necessary to be gone into for determining the present controversy in these petitions, and therefore, it is not elaborated further.

3.1 On 30.09.2013 plaintiff nos.3 to 6, 11, 13, 19 to 22, 24 to 28, as plaintiff nos.7 to 10, 12, 14 to 18 and 23 came to be deleted, vide Exh.515 prayed for abandoning the suit as parties have entered into settlement out of the Court, which was objected to by the advocate of plaintiff no.2 i.e. petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15002 of 2014. However, neither plaintiff no.1 i.e. petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18344 of 2014 nor his advocate were present, and therefore, notice came to be issued to the advocate representing plaintiff no.1 and for filing written objections advocate of original plaintiff no.2 was granted time up to 12.10.2013. Plaintiff no.2 in the suit vide Exh.517 submitted his written objection for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the suit cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the plaintiffs and requested the Court the he wants to proceed further with the suit. It appears that plaintiff no.1 did not file any written objection to the application, Exh.515 for withdrawal of the suit.

3.2 The learned Judge after hearing the advocates for the parties, vide impugned order below Exh.515 dated 30.08.2014 disposed of the whole suit recording the purshis of unconditional withdrawal in permanent Lok Adalat, which is under challenge before this Court by way of these petitions.

4. Heard Mr. Dhaval Dave, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18344 of 2014. Hereinafter he would be refer