Withdrawal of suit without express liberty may still permit a fresh suit when read with the withdrawal application and context.

An order permitting withdrawal of a suit, even if it does not expressly grant liberty to file a fresh suit, may be construed in context of the withdrawal petition seeking leave to sue again. The absence of express words allowing a fresh suit does not necessarily mean that permission was refused. On that reasoning, the subsequent suit was not treated as barred on that ground, and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order permitting withdrawal of a suit, though silent as to liberty to bring a fresh suit, should be construed as granting permission to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Analysis: The prior application sought withdrawal with leave to file a fresh suit. The order granted withdrawal but did not expressly mention liberty to sue again. The reasoning adopted was that such an order must be read with the withdrawal petition itself and construed in context; the absence of express words granting liberty did not necessarily amount to a refusal of that permission.

Conclusion: The order did not bar the subsequent suit, and the objection that the suit was barred on that ground was not accepted.

---