and consequential mutation No.5836 are illegal, null and void. Along with the said relief, the plaintiffs also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. The petitioner-defendant, on notice, entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, asserting that the suit was barred since the respondents had earlier filed Civil Suit No.1234/2017 on the same cause of action, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2018 without any liberty to file afresh. Hence, by virtue of Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC, the subsequent suit was not maintainable. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application vide order dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), holding that as the defendants had already filed written statement, the application for rejection of plaint could not be entertained at that belated stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasoning of the trial Court is unsustainable in law. It is argued that filing of a written statement does not curtail the statutory right of a defendant to raise objections under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, since the issue of maintainability goes to the root of the matter. It is further submitted that once the earlier suit had been withdrawn without liberty, the plaintiffs were clearly barred from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Reliance is placed on Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC, as well as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Shoes East Ltd. v. Jainender Jain, wherein it was categorically held that a subsequent suit on the same cause of action is not maintainable once the earlier suit has been withdrawn without liberty.

5. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rathinavel Chettiar & Another v. V. Sivaraman & Others, (1999) 4 SCC 89 : 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 447, wherein it has been held as under;

“…where a decree passed by the trial Court is challenged in appeal, it would not be open to the plaintiff, at that stage, to withdraw the suit so as to destroy that decree. The rights which have come to be vested in the parties to the suit under the decree cannot be taken away by withdrawal of the suit at that stage unless very strong reasons are shown that the withdrawal would not affect or prejudice anybody’s vested rights.”

6. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondent as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to the respondents.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

8. It is not in dispute that Civil Suit No.1234/2017 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2018. A perusal of the order, however, reveals that the withdrawal was not simpliciter but was premised upon a compromise said to have been entered into between the parties, wherein, the plaintiffs purportedly relinquished their rights in favour of the defendant. The respondents-plaintiffs now assert that such compromise was never acted upon and the defendant resiled from his obligations.

9. The legal position is well settled that where a suit is withdrawn without liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1(4), the plaintiff is precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This principle has been reiterated in M/s Shoes East Ltd. (supra). At the same time, the Supreme Court in R. Rathinavel Chettiar (supra) clarified that the doctrine of bar upon withdrawal must be applied contextually and with regard to vested rights.

10. In the present case, the order dated 16.11.2018 records the factum of compromise. Therefore, the withdrawal cannot be treated as a simpliciter withdrawal so as to attract an absolute bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC. When the alleged compromise did not fructify and the defendant resiled, a fresh cause of action did arise for the plaintiffs. The bar contained under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC thus does not stand attracted to the peculiar facts of this case.

11. The trial Court, however, fell into error in holdi