TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Plaintiff's Unconditional Right to Withdraw Suit Stressed by Court</h1> <h3>Anil Dinmani Shankar Joshi and Ors. Versus Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council and Ors.</h3> The court allowed the withdrawal of a suit against one defendant despite opposition from another defendant. The judgment emphasized that a plaintiff has ... - Issues:1. Permission to withdraw suit against one of the defendants.2. Interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Court's authority regarding withdrawal of suits against specific defendants.Analysis:The case involved a dispute where the applicants sought to withdraw a suit against one of the defendants, despite opposition from the other defendant. The applicants had initially filed a suit against the Chief Officer of the Panvel Municipal Council and another respondent. The applicants later decided to withdraw the suit against the Chief Officer, but the other respondent opposed this withdrawal. The trial court then refused permission for the withdrawal, leading to the challenge in this Revision.The judgment focused on the interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a plaintiff to abandon a suit or a part of the claim against any defendant without the court's permission. The court cited a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that a plaintiff has an unconditional right to withdraw a suit, and the withdrawal is complete as soon as the plaintiff informs the court, without requiring a formal order from the court. This principle applies equally to suits as it does to applications.The court clarified that once a plaintiff files a purshis of withdrawal, the withdrawal is effective, and the court may only pass a formal order recording the withdrawal. The court also highlighted that if the withdrawn defendant was a necessary party, the court could dismiss the suit against all defendants for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the court cannot refuse withdrawal based on the withdrawn defendant's status as a necessary party.Ultimately, the court found the trial court's refusal to allow the withdrawal as erroneous. The judgment set aside the trial court's order and declared that the withdrawal of the suit against the Chief Officer was complete when the plaintiff filed the purshis of withdrawal. Consequently, the Civil Revision Application was allowed in favor of the applicants based on the above findings.
TaxTMI 
