SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1914 Supreme(Mad) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Aiya Koundan And Ors.
Versus
Jagan Mandalathipathiar,
Decided On : 19 August, 1914

The main legal point established is that the grant of permission to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) must be based on 'sufficient ground' and the exercise of judicial discretion, and condoning defects due to the plaintiff's default without a valid excuse constitutes a material irregularity.

Headnote:

Order XXIII - Permission to Withdraw Suit - Material Irregularity

Fact of the Case:

The District Munsif granted permission to withdraw a suit with leave to sue again under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) after a substantial portion of the plaintiff's case had been heard, citing reasons related to his inability to attend the hearing, the need for a commission, and certain measurements and plan preparation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Munsif's grant of permission constituted a material irregularity under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code and that the discretion was not exercised judicially, as it was done in spite of the defendant's opposition and without any excuse for the plaintiff's default.

Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of 'sufficient ground' in Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) and the exercise of judicial discretion by the District Munsif.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 'sufficient ground' for permission to withdraw a suit must be ejusdem generis with the defect referred to in Rule 1(2)(a) and that the District Munsif's discretion was not exercised judicially, as it condoned defects in the plaintiff's conduct due to the plaintiff's own default without any valid excuse.

Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal and Petition were allowed with costs, the District Munsif's order was set aside, and he was directed to restore the suit and dispose of it according to law.

JUDGMENT

1. We disallow the preliminary objection that no Letters Patent Appeal lies with reference to Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachella Padayachi (1906) I.L.R. 30 M. 311. There is no doubt that an ill-advised grant of permission to withdraw a suit with leave to sue again, under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) may be such a material irregularity as is contemplated by Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Here the District Munsif granted permission, after a substantial portion of the plaintiffs case had been heard, on his affidavit that (1) he could not attend the hearing owing to his brothers death (2) he wished for the issue of a commission, apparently then first mentioned (3) that he had to have certain measurements made and a plan prepared,

2. We are prepared to hold that the " sufficient ground referred to in Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) must be ejusdem generis with the defect referred to in Rule 1(2)(a) with reference to the usual interpretation of these words elsewhere in the Code, and to the explicit authority of Burathgunta Pentadu v. Kurla Pathi Rajamma (1911) M.W.N. 105. And that it is clear that the District Munsif acted on nothing in any way resembling a formal defect and that his order is unsustainable. But whether or no this interpretation of the phrase "sufficient ground " be adopted, we must hold that his discretion was not exercised judicially, since it was exercised in spite of the defendants opposition to condone defects in the plaintiffs conduct of his case, which were due entirely to his own default and for which no excuse was attempted. The facts closely resemble those dealt with in Bui Kashi Bai v. Shidappa Annapa (1913) I.L.R. 37 B. 683, a decision in which we express our respectful concurrence. The Letters Patent Appeal and Petition are allowed with costs. The District Munsifs order is set aside and he is directed to restore the suit and dispose of it according to law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top