Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 2110
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and M.M.S.Bedi JJ.
Sita Ram
Versus
Union Of India
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7426 of 2006,
Decided On : MAY 15, 2006
In the absence of liberty to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action, no fresh suit would be competent.
Headnote:
Liberty - Civil Suit - Fresh Filing - Withdrawal of Suit
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service and subsequently filed a civil suit challenging the dismissal. The suit was later withdrawn by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that in the absence of any liberty to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action, no fresh suit would be competent. The petitioner's appropriate remedy would be to file a review application seeking proper incorporation of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner or to seek revision of the order.
Issues: Challenge to dismissal from service, withdrawal of civil suit, competency of filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and judgments to conclude that no fresh suit would be competent without liberty to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner's appropriate remedy would be to file a review application or to seek revision of the order.
M. M. KUMAR, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 17.11.1992 (P-1) dismissing the petitioner from service and for quashing order dated 1.4.1993 (P-2) upholding the order dated 17.11.1992 by the Appellate Authority. The revision petition has also been dismissed on 17.11.1993 (P-3 ). The case of the petitioner is that earlier he has filed a civil suit for declaration (P-12) challenging the aforementioned orders, which was dismissed in default. Thereafter an application for restoration was made. After restoration of the suit to its original number, the learned Civil Judge has passed an order on 9.12.2005 (P-14) recording that the petitioner did not want to proceed with the aforementioned suit and had withdrawn the same. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn with the order that the file be consigned to the record room after compliance.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that in the absence of any liberty to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action, no fresh suit would be competent. In that regard reliance could be placed on a judgment of the HON BLE Supreme Court in the case of M/s Upadhayay and Co. V/s. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1999 SC 509 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of O. P. Bhatia V/s. The Punjab National Bank, 1997 (1) SCT 128. A writ petition in any case cannot be filed after withdrawing the civil suit in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Darshan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1999 (1) RSJ 730. We are further of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any part of the order dated 9.12.2005 (P-14) then his appropriate remedy would be either to file a review application seeking proper incorporation of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner (P-13) wherein he has stated that the suit was being withdrawn as there was technical defect and in order to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Since the aforementioned statement has not been incorporated in the order dated 9.12.2005 (P-14), the proper remedy would either be to file a review or to seek revision of that order. With the observation made above, the writ petition is disposed of.
