TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Court Reverses Ruling on Second Suit Appeal</h1> <h3>Mangi Lal and Anr. Versus Radha Mohan and Anr.</h3> The appellate court, led by Justice Addison, overturned the District Judge's ruling that the second suit was barred under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The ... - Issues:- Amendment of plaint to include Secretary of State as a party- Dismissal of the suit under Order 9, Rule 3, Civil P.C.- Filing of a second suit after withdrawal of the first suit- Bar under Section 11, Civil P.C. and Order 23, Rule 1- Decision of the Subordinate Judge- Decision of the District Judge- Interpretation of Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C.- Remand of the appeal for further legal points and meritsAnalysis:The plaintiffs claimed ownership of 450 square yards of land, with defendant 2 placing stones on 305 square yards for construction. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against defendant 2. The plaintiffs later withdrew the suit before a hearing, and subsequently filed a second suit involving the Secretary of State and defendant 2. The defendants argued that the second suit was barred under Section 11, Civil P.C. and Order 23, Rule 1, as the first suit was withdrawn without court permission.The Subordinate Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding notice to the Secretary of State and rejecting the bar under res judicata and Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The Subordinate Judge also determined that the plaintiffs held title to the land and decreed the suit. However, the District Judge overturned this decision solely on the grounds of the second suit being barred under Order 23, Rule 1, without addressing other points. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.Justice Addison interpreted Order 23, Rule 1, emphasizing that it pertains to suits withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit. He disagreed with the District Judge's view that the rule could bar a suit filed before the abandonment of a previous suit. Citing a similar case, he accepted the appeal, set aside the District Judge's judgment, and remanded the appeal for consideration of other legal aspects. The court-fee for the appeal was to be refunded, and costs were to be borne by the parties as per the District Judge's discretion.Justice Bhide concurred with Justice Addison's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
