Withdrawal with liberty cannot shorten statutory limitation for a fresh redemption suit, and the claim remains open on merits.

A condition attached to leave to withdraw an earlier redemption suit could not curtail the mortgagor's statutory right to file a fresh suit within the limitation period. The Court held that section 374 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 left the law of limitation unaffected by permission to withdraw, and that withdrawal with liberty did not extinguish the right of redemption absent an adjudication that the mortgage relationship no longer existed. The suit was therefore not barred merely because it was filed after the two-year condition, and it had to be considered on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition attached to permission to withdraw the earlier redemption suit could curtail the plaintiff's statutory right to institute a fresh redemption suit within the period of limitation, and whether the present suit was therefore time-barred.

Analysis: The earlier suit for redemption had been withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit within two years, but the Court held that such a condition could not override the law of limitation. Section 374 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 made it clear that the law of limitation was not affected by the grant of leave to withdraw. The right of a mortgagor to redeem subsisted so long as there had been no adjudication that the mortgage relationship itself did not exist. The earlier withdrawal did not by itself destroy the right of redemption or authorise the Court to shorten the statutory limitation period.

Conclusion: The suit could not be treated as barred merely because it was filed after the two-year condition imposed on withdrawal, and the matter had to be reconsidered on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A court granting leave to withdraw a suit cannot impose a condition that extinguishes or shortens the statutory period of limitation for a fresh suit, because the law of limitation remains unaffected by such leave.

---