Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SURESH KUMAR, G. ARUL MURUGAN, JJ.
M/s. VKN Shot Blasting Industries – Petitioner
Versus
The Branch Manager/Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Madurai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 12942 of 2024, W.M.P. (MD) No. 11489 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024
Writ Petition - Property Possession - The court addressed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to prevent the second respondent from taking possession of the property until the Securitization application was resolved. The court noted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition, leading to its dismissal without costs, highlighting the procedural aspect of withdrawal in legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking to prevent the second respondent from taking possession of their property based on an order from the CJM, Sivagangai, until a related Securitization application was resolved.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's request to withdraw the Writ Petition, which was formally endorsed in the court bundle. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could withdraw the Writ Petition and what implications this has on the ongoing legal proceedings regarding property possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that a petitioner has the right to withdraw their petition, and such withdrawal leads to the dismissal of the case without further proceedings.
Result: The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to defer from taking possession of the petitioner's property pursuant to the order passed by the CJM, Sivagangai in Crl. M.P. No. 9745 of 2023 till the disposal of the Securitization application before DRT.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle.
2. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a Writ Petition under Article 226, leading to its dismissal without costs.
A writ petition under Article 226 can be withdrawn if the circumstances surrounding the case change, making the petition moot.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to its dismissal without further examination.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear in court, demonstrating a lack of interest in the proceedings.
The court cannot entertain petitions for interim relief under Article 226 when an alternative remedy is pursued without obtaining interim orders.
The court has the discretion to grant permission for the withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court.
Petitioner allowed to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
A petition may be withdrawn with permission if there is no objection from the opposing party and the applicant may pursue further recourse under Article 227 of the Constitution.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition when circumstances change, such as the revocation of a suspension.
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
