Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.S.PATHAK
SAVITRI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
HIRA LAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 69 of 1975
Decided On : 06/23/1977
O. 23 R. 1 (2) - Permission to Withdraw Suit with Liberty to File Fresh Suit - The court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit based on the discovery that the disputed land had been acquired by the State Government. However, the defendant challenged this decision, arguing that the State Government was a necessary party and the suit was not liable to fail due to a formal defect but a material defect.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership of disputed land, but later discovered that the land had been acquired by the State Government. He applied to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, which was granted by the Subordinate Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the omission to implead a necessary party, the State Government, was not a formal defect but a material defect, and therefore the provisions of O. 23 R. 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure were erroneously applied by the Subordinate Judge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit based on the discovery of the State Government's acquisition of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the omission to implead a necessary party cannot be described as a formal defect but a material defect, and therefore the provisions of O. 23 R. 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure were incorrectly applied.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was set aside.
1. This is a defendants revision petition directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kangra permitting the plaintiff to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner in possession of the disputed land. During the pendency of the suit he discovered that the land had been acquired by the State Government. Accordingly, he applied under O. 23. R. 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The basis of the application was that as the land had been acquired by the State Government the suit must fail by reason of a formal defect inasmuch as the State was not a party to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application and by his order dated October 3, 1974 dismissed the plaintiffs suit granting permission to file a fresh suit.
3. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner urges that the conditions of O. 23 R. 1 (2) of the Code are not satisfied. It is urged that having regard to the pleadings in the case the State Government was a necessary party, and therefore it cannot be said that it was by reason of a formal defect that the suit was liable to fail. The omission to implead a necessary party, it is urged, is not a formal defect, and support is taken from Tarachand Bapuchand v. Gaibihaji Ahmed Bagwan, AIR 1956 Bom 632 and Ram Padarath v. Data Din, AIR 1941 Oudh 417. There is force in the contention. The omission to implead a necessary party cannot be described as a formal defect. It is a material defect. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge erred in applying the provisions of O. 23 R. 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and making the order which he has.
4. The revision petition is allowed. The order dated October 3, 1974 made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kangra, is set aside. As no one has appeared in opposition to this revision petition, there is no order as to costs. Revision allowed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
