Aggrieved by the judgment (order) dated 19.03.2002 in A.S. No.61 of 1997 of Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.273 of 1994 of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, the defendants came up with this appeal. It is through an application in I.A.No.1376/2000, the plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the original suit in O.S.No.273/1994 of Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha in the first appellate stage. The first appellate court allowed the said application by its order dated 19.03.2002 and consequently appeal was disposed of allowing withdrawal of the suit by its order dated 19.03.2002.

2. An initial objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of appeal, as the order permitting withdrawal is neither a 'judgment' nor a 'decree' or an 'appealable order'. The position is well settled in Kumari v. Prabhakaran reported in 2012 KHC 2799, as such this appeal is not maintainable.

3. It prima facie appears from the impugned order that the lower court has committed very grave mistake in exercising its jurisdiction in its correct perspective and improperly applied it while rendering the impugned order and hence amenable for supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court, hence the appeal is treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It appears that lower court has proceeded with the matter under a wrong impression that no decree has been passed in favour of the respondents (defendants) by the trial court since the suit was dismissed. A decree dismissing the suit would operate against both the plaintiff and the defendant. In effect, when the suit was dismissed it amounts to rejection of the right, interest or title claimed by plaintiffs against the defendants. In other words, it is a decree in favour of the defendants and hence the observation made by the lower court that there is no decree against the defendants is factually and legally incorrect.

5. The effect of withdrawal of a suit after suffering a decree is elaborately considered in a decision rendered by the Apex Court in R.Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. V. Sivaraman and Others reported in J.T. 1999 (2) SC 468 = 1999 4 SCC 89 wherein it was held that when withdrawal is allowed it would have the effect of destroying the decree passed in the suit. In the present case, the plaintiffs have already suffered a decree by dismissal of the suit on merits. The claim raised in the suit is with respect to an easement right which was ultimately found against the plaintiffs. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs when they were having right, title and interest over the immovable property, which is the subject matter of the suit. Subsequent alienation, transfer or sale of property would not invalidate the decree passed in the suit against the plaintiffs. The pendente lite purchasers, if any, or those who are claiming under the plaintiffs are bound by the decree passed. As such, a subsequent sale of the property by the plaintiffs itself is not a ground for granting withdrawal of suit.

6. Then the question is what should be the approach of the court in dealing with an application for withdrawal of suit. There is lot of difference in the legal position applicable to withdrawal of suit at the pre-decree stage and post-decree stage. At the pre-decree stage the plaintiffs are at liberty to withdraw the suit or abandon the suit either partly or in whole except in a suit which would fall under either Order I Rule 8 CPC or Order XXXII Rules 1 to 14 CPC and the court has nothing to do with that liberty vested with the plaintiffs. But, at the post-decree stage it is fully and completely resting on the legal principles and it cannot be granted on mere asking as in the case of pre-decree stage. At the pre-decree stage, even the permission of the court is not required except in cases which would fall under Order I Rule 8 CPC or Order XXXII Rules 1 to 14 CPC, but the plaintiffs are boun