Reserved
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 226 of 2017 Revisionist :- M/S G.R. Batla Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party :- Sri Sachin Agarwal And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh for the revisionist.
This revision is directed against the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Meerut, whereby he has allowed application no. 27 Ga filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC and permitted him to withdraw the suit with liberty to file it afresh.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the order is without jurisdiction. The application 27 Ga was filed with a hidden purpose and was not in confirmity with Order 23 Rule 1 CPC.
The application for withdrawal of the suit was filed by the plaintiff stating therein that although notice of the suit has been served upon the respondent, no written statement had been filed. The suit was one for permanent injunction and after it was filed some subsequent developments had taken place and talks of a compromise were also going on. Therefore, permission was sought to withdraw the suit with liberty to file it afresh.
The application for withdrawal of the suit appears to have been contested by the revisionist-defendant no. 3 on the same grounds, which have been urged before me.
The Court below has found that the objection of the defendant- revisionist to be formal in nature. It is also opined that no issues have been framed in the suit and, therefore, no injury would be suffered by the defendant and that a plaintiff always has a right to withdraw his suit.
The loss suffered by the defendant has also been made good, by allowing the application for withdrawal of the suit, on payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs.
Upon hearing counsel for the revisionist and upon a perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality therein.
The Apex Court in Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup, 2009 (6) SCC 194 has held that a right to withdraw a suit in a suitor is unqualified, if no right has been vested in any other party.
Counsel for the revisionist has not submitted that any right has vested in him.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist additionally is that entire defence had been disclosed in the written statement filed and thereafter, ex parte injunction, claimed by the plaintiff, had been refused.
He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Bhoopathy and others Vs. Kokila and others, 2000 (5) Supreme Court Cases 458.
The judgment cited has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case because therein, it has been held that permission to withdraw a suit with permission to file a fresh cannot be granted, where the claim set out in the original suit is weak and adverse findings have been recorded against the plaintiff. Admittedly, no finding has been returned against the plaintiff since issues had not yet been framed in the suit.
Under the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned calls for no interference. The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.05.2018 Mayank ANJANI KUMAR Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea0 49885bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e210 927d94f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f MISHRA 85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25db badc93823915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2018-05-29 10:50:33