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

1961 Supreme(All) 202

M. C. DESAI, T. RAMABHADRAN
HULAS RAI BAIJNATH – Appellant
Versus
K. B. BASS, CO. LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P.Pandey, K.C.SAKSENA, S.S.VARMA

DESAI, C. J.

( 1 ) I agree with my brother Ramabhadran that this application should be dismissed with costs.


( 2 ) THE opposite partys application for withdrawal of the suit was opposed by the applicant, who contended before the trial Court that the application be dismissed and that a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts be passed on its paying the Court-fee. The application of the opposite party was a simple application withdrawing the suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. It had the absolute right to withdraw the suit at any time; it did not stand in need of any leave of the Court for withdrawing. The question of the leave of the Court would have arisen only if it had asked for leave to file a fresh suit. The petitioner could not resist the withdrawal of the suit and the Court could not compel the opposite party to continue it. I do not understand what could be the opposite partys "game" in withdrawing the suit even if it had been pending for a long time and the petitioner had incurred considerable expenditure on it; on the suit being withdrawn it was open to the Court to award the petitioner its costs and it did award them and, therefore, no question of





















































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top