When the court satisfies that there are reasons under clause (a) or (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule (1) of Order XXIII, the Court while exercising the power to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, should have given such liberty, as the permission to withdraw the suit and giving liberty to institute the suit are inseparable in the context of the language used in sub-rule (3) of Rule (1) of Order XXIII.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 20.08.2019 as regards refusing liberty to the petitioner for filing a fresh suit in I.A.No.7/2019 in O.S.No.2464 of 2019 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and allow the revision petition with costs.)

1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2019 in O.S.No.2464 of 2019 by the XIV Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai, by order, dated 20.08.2019.

2. The Revision Petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.2464 of 2019 before the trial Court for the following relief:

“The plaintiff therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree against the Defendant in favour of the plaintiff:

a. To grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men, or agents or servant or anybody claiming under them from take movie based on plaintiff story registered in “South Indian Film Writers Association” bearing Registration No.005004 of 2018 on 10.10.2018 in title name of “Kalki”.

b. grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men or agents or servant or anybody claiming under them from releasing of the said Movie “Thalapathy 63” or any other title based on plaintiff story bearing Registration Number 005004 of 2018 on 10.10.2018 in title name of “Kalki”.

3. On filing of the said suit, which was admitted and summons were issued to the defendants, who are the respondents herein, on receipt of summons, the respondents entered appearance in the suit.

4. The first respondent is the first defendant and the second respondent is the second defendant in the suit. These respondents/defendants filed two applications in the said suit. I.A.No.5 of 2019 was filed by the second respondent/second defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) and 11(a) of CPC to reject the plaint. Like that, the first respondent/first defendant also filed an Interlocutory Application in the said suit in I.A.No.6 of 2019, of course this I.A also was filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC to reject the plaint.

5. In the said two Interlocutory Applications, i.e. I.A.Nos.6 and 5 of 2019 filed by the respondents 1 and 2, i.e., defendants 1 and 2 respectively, counter affidavit had been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff and when the said Interlocutory Applications were pending consideration, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Interlocutory Application, i.e., I.A.No.7 of 2019 on 17.07.2019 under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking the permission of the trial Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit before the appropriate forum.

6. In the said application in I.A.No.7 of 2019, both the respondents 1 and 2, i.e., defendants 1 and 2 had filed counter affidavit separately and arguments seems to have been advanced by both sides. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge in the said I.A.No.7 of 2019 passed the order on 20.08.2019, whereby, the learned Judge permitted the revision petitioner/plaintiff to withdraw the suit as sought for, however the permission sought for from the court below to file a fresh suit before the appropriate forum has been rejected or such permission was denied, thereby I.A.No.7 of 2019 was partly allowed and partly dismissed. Therefore against the disallowed portion, in other words, order not permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to institute a fresh suit before the appropriate forum, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision, invoking the superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, that is how the present revision has come up before this Court.

7. On the day of admission of this revision, Advocates for R1 and R2 entered appearance through caveat and preliminary arguments were heard from the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and