Judgment.- The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is very simple, namely, whether when a plaintiff files a petition to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter, under Order 23, rule 1(2), Civil Procedure Code, the Court has got the right to dismiss the petition telling him that he might withdraw the suit if he wants but that it will not give him permission to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter. The lower Court is said to have dismissed the suit (O.S.No. 95 of 1944) later on, but we are not concerned in this Civil Revision Petition with this alleged later order of dismissal, which is not filed here, on a subsequent unconditional withdrawal or non-prosecution of the suit. I have absolutely no doubt that the lower Court had the right and jurisdiction to pass an order it did. The law regarding the withdrawal of a suit under Order 23, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, is well settled. Order 23, rule 1(1) gives the plaintiff the liberty to withdraw from a suit unconditionally on finding it unsustainable, or for any other reason. No leave or order is necessary for this. See Lakshman v. Muthayya1 and Mahant v. Parshotamdas2. The plaintiff need not assign any reason for such an unconditional withdrawal. Order 23, rule 1(2), Civil Procedure Code, contemplates a withdrawal from the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. Here the plaintiff must ask for leave and must make out a case within clause (a) or (b). The Court has no jurisdiction to allow such withdrawal with liberty unless the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, under clause (a) or unless there are “other sufficient grounds” for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter under clause (b). See Harshamukhi v. Sarat Chandra Ata3 and Raj v. Ram4. An application to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter must be either allowed or refused in toto. If liberty is refused, the suit should not be dismissed at once but retained for trial in the usual course. See Marudachala v. Chinna 5. The Court cannot divide the petition into two, and accept the withdrawal and refuse the liberty in the same order. It is bound to give the facts and reasons when giving the liberty to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter. See Shamanandan Prasad v. Mulchand6, Sukumar v. Chairman, District Board of Gaya7 and Reasuddin v. Mirsajid8, Abdul v. Mohammed9 and Subhasini v. Ashutosh 10 . “Other sufficient grounds” in clause (b) has been interpreted to mean “grounds ejusdem generis” to those mentioned in clause (a) “or at least analogous to them.” See Mabulla v. Hemargini 11 , Nagamma v. Lakshminarasu12, Sukumar v. Chairman, District Board, Gaya7 and Ram Rao v. Babu Appanna 13. In the present case, the petitioner, the first plaintiff, had asked for permission to withdraw his suit, O.S.No. 95 of 1944 for possession of properties as the nearest reversioner to one Seshayya, whose widow Alivelu died on 30th November, 1941, against the alleged adopted son of Seshayya, the first defendant and others. The grounds alleged by him in this I.A.No. 1374 of 1945 for withdrawal with liberty, were that his vakil, Mr. P. Chalapati Rao, had taken a portion of his the (petitioner’s) properties in advance in the name of his relative the second plaintiff for conducting the suit, and had then filed a genealogical table which would not support the petitioner’s case and has also refused to amend the plaint and the genealogical table suitably. The first defendant had attacked the genealogical table as false and mythical, and had contested the petitioner’s claim to be the nearest reversioner, besides asserting the truth and validity of his own adoption. The suit was filed in 1944. This I.A. was filed on 9th November, 1945, after giving up his vakil and revoking his vakalat. On 9th November, 1945, itself the lower Court passed the order as below:

“The petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document