Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiff's Right to Withdraw Suit

The Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiff's right to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. The Trial Court and Revision Court were justified in allowing the withdrawal. The High Court erred in setting aside the lower courts' orders and directing the plaintiff to give possession of the land to the defendant, as it exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into issues beyond the withdrawal of the suit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstated the lower courts' orders, and advised the defendant to address ownership and possession issues in separate proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Trial Court and the Revision Court were justified in allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court and directing the plaintiff to place the defendant in possession of the suit land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Withdrawal of Suit by the Trial Court and the Revision Court:

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.1 from interfering with the possession of the suit land. Subsequently, the appellant applied for withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Trial Court granted permission to withdraw the suit on payment of cost of Rs. 350/- to the defendant, invoking sub-rule (4)(a) of Rule 1. The Revision Court upheld this decision.

Order XXIII Rule 1 allows a plaintiff to abandon the suit or part of it at any time after its institution. If permission to withdraw is granted under Rule 1(3), the plaintiff can institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter. However, if withdrawal is under sub-rule (1) read with sub-rule (4)(a) or (b), the plaintiff is precluded from filing a fresh suit on the same subject matter and is only liable for costs.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the plaintiff has the right to withdraw the suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, and the defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to continue the suit, except to claim costs. The Trial Court and the Revision Court were justified in permitting the withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1.

2. High Court's Decision to Set Aside Lower Courts' Orders:

The High Court, in its writ petition judgment, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court and directed the plaintiff to place the defendant in possession of the suit land. The Supreme Court found this to be a jurisdictional error. The High Court's scope in the writ petition was limited to examining whether the Trial Court and the Revision Court correctly applied Order XXIII Rule 1 in allowing the withdrawal of the suit.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by delving into issues related to the grant of injunction, which was not the subject matter of the writ petition. The grant of injunction is governed by Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, which operates in a different sphere than Order XXIII Rule 1. The defendant did not challenge the ex-parte injunction order in the appropriate forums, and thus, the High Court should not have addressed it in the writ petition proceedings.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should have confined its inquiry to the compliance with Order XXIII Rule 1 and not extended its judgment to issues beyond the withdrawal of the suit.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court. The defendant is at liberty to raise issues relating to ownership and possession of the suit land in appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law.

---