Court allows appeal withdrawal and clarifies appellant's rights to challenge decree under law.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

Sri.T.N.Manoj – learned counsel for the appellant, argued this matter substantially; but when confronted with the fact that the Original Suit, namely OS No. 18/1989, has been decreed, requested that his client be allowed to withdraw this Appeal, to challenge the decree after obtaining the certified copy from this Court, since the records have been called here.

2. Sri.Sudhi Vasudevan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Shilpa Sathish, appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that, though his client does not stand in the way of this Appeal being allowed to be withdrawn, no specific leave be granted in favour of the appellant, since she can invoke any remedy that may be available to her in law.

3. We find some force in the afore submission of the learned Senior Counsel because, we are only concerned about the claim made by the appellant, under the provisions of Order XXI Rules 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), in this case. If she wants to challenge the decree itself, nothing stops her from doing so, as per law.

In the afore circumstances, at the request of Sri.T.N.Manoj, we allow this Appeal to be withdrawn; however, with every other liberty available to the appellant in law, including against the decree in the Original Suit, being clarified to be in no manner precluded. It is so ordered.

Needless to say, if the records of the Original Suit are before this Court, the right of the appellant to seek the certified copies of the decree as per law from this Court is also protected.

After we dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.T.N.Manoj pleaded that, since his client intends to invoke her appellate remedy, some interim protection may be offered to her, so as to enable her to do so.

Though the learned Senior Counsel –

Sri.Sudhi Vasudevan, opposed the afore request also, we are of the view that, since this Appeal has been pending before this Court from the year 2009, it would not be imprudent for us to protect the appellant for a period of one month.

Therefore, we order that the status quo with respect to the portion of property claimed by the appellant will be maintained by both sides for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.