Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The court's procedure involves the plaintiff filing a memo or application to withdraw; the court then considers whether the withdrawal affects the rights of other parties ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1539"].
Can B expunge A on his behalf? - Main points and insights:
Analysis and Conclusion:- A co-plaintiff wishing to withdraw from a suit must personally apply for withdrawal; B cannot do so on his behalf unless A himself files the application. The court's procedure requires an overt act or application from the individual plaintiff to effect withdrawal or expungement ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1539"]. Therefore, A must apply himself to withdraw, and B cannot expunge A on his behalf.
In , situations arise where one party in a joint lawsuit wishes to step back. Imagine A and B filing as in a suit. Now, A wants to withdraw. The burning question is: If A and B are , does A need to apply himself, or can B expunge him on his behalf?
This is a common procedural dilemma in jurisdictions like India and Malaysia, governed by civil procedure codes and rules of court. Understanding this prevents procedural missteps that could derail your case. This post breaks down the legal principles, key cases, and practical steps, drawing from established precedents. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, in the (with parallels in ), a co-plaintiff has the authority to , but it requires an application for . The other co-plaintiff cannot or withdraw the absent co-plaintiff’s claim without proper . This ensures fairness and prevents prejudice to other parties. [
#CivilLitigation #PlaintiffWithdrawal #MalaysiaLaw
The procedure to be adopted by Courts in a partition suit, when a plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit, or when plaintiff wants the suit to be dismissed as settled out of Court with some defendants, can be summarised thus: (i) When a plaintiff ... The procedure to be adopted by Courts in a partition suit, when a plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit, or when plaintiff wants the suit to be dismissed....
Accordingly the hearsay rule does not apply to affidavit evidence. ... Mah Weng Kwai JC: [1] The plaintiff by his originating summons is seeking inter alia, leave of court to commence an action on behalf of the defendant by way of a writ of summons ... (g) Counsel for the plaintiff contended that as the defendant had replied the plaintiff's affidavits, the defendant's application to expunge the said paragraphs is an afterthought. ... Similarly in this case grave injustice would be occasioned to the....
Similarly in this case grave injustice would be occasioned to the plaintiff, if the court were to expunge the said paragraphs merely on the ground of technicality. ... Mah Weng Kwai JC: [1] The plaintiff by his originating summons is seeking inter alia, leave of court to commence an action on behalf of the defendant ... (g) Counsel for the plaintiff contended that as the defendant had replied the plaintiff's affidavits, the defendant's application to expunge the said paragraphs is an ....
It is not a case where plaintiff has already led his evidence and wants to withdraw the suit since he wants to come with body of fresh evidence to put forth his case. ... The stage of the suit is not where witnesses of plaintiff have failed to support his case and he wants to obtain an opportunity to commence the trial afresh in order to avoid the result of his previous bad conduct so as to prejudice the opposite party. ... The suit is hence likely to fail on account of such absence of....
[9] The appellant, in his written submission at p 7, summarised the grounds relied upon by the plaintiff in the application for leave to apply for an order of committal against the appellant and the respondents. ... [7] On 24 November 2014, the appellants firm filed a notice of application to withdraw itself from action as the solicitors for the respondents in this suit, inter alia, due to various differences which caused the firm to ... legal privilege, the appellant referred us to Sarkars Law of Evidence, 15th edn, at p 2046, wherein ....
Whether the plaintiff may expunge the defendants 5 Trade Marks which have been registered for more than seven years? ... Whether The Plaintiff May Expunge The Defendants 5 Trade Marks Which Has Been Registered For More Than Seven Years? ... The proprietor of a well-known mark need not carry on business or possess any goodwill within the local territory. ... Neither has the plaintiff satisfied the requirements laid down in the relevant ss of the TMA to entitle him to expunge#H....
Registered Trade Marks and does not have the "locus standi" so as to entitle it to apply to the Court to expunge the registration of the defendant's trade marks from the register pursuant to the TMA. ... Aggrieved Person [27] The first question which arises in this appeal is whether the 3rd plaintiff is an aggrieved person within the meaning of s 45(1)(a) of the TMA to apply for expungement of the ... ; (2) the second plaintiff company (2nd plaintiff) is in the business of import....
and does not have the "locus standi" so as to entitle it to apply to the Court to expunge the registration of the defendant's trade marks from the register pursuant to the TMA. ... Aggrieved Person [27] The first question which arises in this appeal is whether the 3rd plaintiff is an aggrieved person within the meaning of s 45(1)(a) of the TMA to apply for expungement of the defendant's Registered Trade Marks. ... The Parties [5] The plaintiffs are as follows: (1) the first plaintiff (1st pl....
[9] The appellant, in his written submission at p 7, summarised the grounds relied upon by the plaintiff in the application for leave to apply for an order of committal against the appellant and the respondents. ... [39] As such, the substratum of this affidavit in reply only need focus on what happened in Jakarta on those dates. ... [7] On 24 November 2014, the appellants firm filed a notice of application to withdraw itself from action as the solicitors for the respondents in this suit, inter alia, due to vario....
which the plaintiff is seeking to expunge. ... Furthermore, if the appellant is to be regarded as a "person aggrieved" for the purposes of s 46(1) of the TMA, it would mean that all infringers may apply to expunge the very trade mark they have been infringing and this would be contrary to the time honoured principle of ... The plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of its mark, is also aggrieved by the legal action issued by the defendant seeking to expunge its trade marks in OS 24IP-....
It is clear that the said provision is attracted to the facts of the present case. B buys the estate for himself in the name of C. A, 'on discovering that B has bought the estate for himself, may repudiate the sale, if he can show that B has dishonestly concealed any material fact, or that the sale has been disadvantageous to him.”
(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally To summarise: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes- 206 (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted ....
IF HE HAD NOT HIMSELF CULTIVATED HIS LAND, THERE B WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO REMOVE GRASS FROM HIS FIELD. THUS THE STATEMENT OF THE INFORMANT AS MADE IN PARA 12 IS QUITE OPPOSITE THAT ON 22-7-1979 I.E. THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE, HE HAD HIMSELF CULTIVATED HIS LAND. THUS THE NATURE OF THIS INCIDENT ITSELF APPEARS TO BE QUITE DOUBTFUL."
The accused need not examine himself as a witness and even if he wants, he must apply to the court under Sec. 315 Criminal Procedure Code only then can he examine himself. The incorrect impression deserves to be dispelled at the earliest. His omission/failure/refusal to examine himself cannot be the subject matter of any comment or justify any presumption or finding against him.
His omission/failure/refusal to examine himself cannot be subject matter of any comment or justify any presumption or finding against him. The accused need not examine himself as a witness and even if he wants, he must apply to the Court under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
