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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 482

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J.
VLS Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Strips India – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1131 of 2024
Decided On : 02-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.V. Durga Prasad.
For the Respondent: V.V. Anil Kumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
Permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit requires sufficient grounds or a formal defect; mere change in circumstances does not suffice.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 23 Rule 1 – Withdrawal of suit – The plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration of title and possession, which was dismissed by the trial court due to lack of sufficient grounds for withdrawal. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had the opportunity to amend the existing plaint instead of seeking to withdraw the suit. The trial court's reliance on the principle of lis pendens was noted, indicating that the withdrawal would not create a fresh cause of action. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 10, 12)

(B) Legal Principles – The court reiterated that permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit must be granted only if the court is satisfied about the existence of a formal defect or sufficient grounds. The discretion to allow withdrawal is not absolute and must consider the interests of the defendants. (Paras 6, 10, 12)

Facts of the case: The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against multiple defendants, later seeking to withdraw the suit to file a fresh one after a sale deed was executed by the first defendant. The trial court dismissed the withdrawal application, stating the plaintiff could amend the existing plaint.

Findings of Court: The trial court found no sufficient grounds for allowing the withdrawal of the suit, emphasizing the principle of lis pendens and the opportunity for amendment.

Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff had sufficient grounds for withdrawal and if the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Order 23 Rule 1.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a fresh cause of action and that the trial court's discretion was exercised correctly in denying the withdrawal.

Result: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial of the original suit.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order dated 04.12.2023 in I.A. No. 853 of 2023 in O.S. No. 56 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy.

2. The petitioner is the defendant No. 1 in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 herein. The suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendants therein who are 8 in number. The suit was filed on 24.03.2022 and defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement on 08.06.2022. The other defendants, i.e. defendants 2 to 8 also filed their written statement collectively on 08.06.2022. In the written statement, defendant No. 1 has taken the objection about the title as well as possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A. No. 161 of 2022 for interim injunction. Defendant No. 1 had filed his counter to the I.A. also raising objections with regard to the title and the possession over the suit schedule property and the boundaries mentioned of the suit schedule property. Respondents 2 to 8 have also filed their counter affidavit and it is thereafter and after hearing all the parties that the petition for interim injunction was dismissed vide orders dated 29.08.2022.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 9 of 2023 on 04.01.2023 seeking permission to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 56 of 2022 reserving its right to file a separate suit seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 1 filed his counter affidavit submitting that the plaintiff did not have any title to the property and therefore, it cannot file any suit for title and possession and that such a suit would be barred by limitation and further, that the plaintiff is abusing the process of Court by indulging in frivolous litigation and is compelling the defendants to incur huge amount towards litigation expenses. It was submitted that the plaintiff is intending to withdraw the suit after the defendants have filed their counter affidavit and have revealed their defence and therefore, though the plaintiff can be allowed to withdraw the suit, no liberty should be granted to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit based on the same cause of action. After hearing both the parties, vide orders dated 06.03.2023, the petition filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was dismissed by observing that the plaintiff is having opportunity of amending the existing plaint seeking the relief of declaration of title and it cannot be said that there is any formal defect in the existing plaint entailing dismissal of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. It was observed that the plaintiff could not specify the formal defect which is likely to lead to dismissal of the suit nor were any other sufficient grounds made out by it for permitting it to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter, particularly when it is having opportunity of seeking amendment of the existing plaint. The Court has also taken note of the fact that I.A. No. 161 of 2022 in O.S. No. 56 of 2022 seeking interim injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property was dismissed by the Court on 28.09.2022 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the High Court for the State of Telangana is still pending and during the pendency of such an appeal, the plaintiff is seeking withdrawal of the said suit. Thus, leave under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC was not granted. C.M.A. No. 596 of 2022 filed against the order in I.A. No. 161 of 2022 was also withdrawn by the plaintiff vide judgment dated 01.03.2024.

4. Thereafter, on 12.09.2023, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 853 of 2023 in O.S. No. 56 of 2022 seeking permission to withdraw the suit and file fresh suit for declaration of title and possession stating that while passing orders in I.A. No. 161

    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