Competent court orders are not nullities: erroneous leave to withdraw a suit must be challenged directly, not collaterally.

A withdrawal order granting liberty to file a fresh suit, even if made outside the strict conditions of Order XXIII Rule 1(2), is not a nullity when passed by a court of competent jurisdiction; it is at most an erroneous exercise of power and remains effective until set aside in direct proceedings. A fresh suit instituted on the strength of such leave is therefore competent, and the court in that later suit cannot collaterally examine the validity of the earlier withdrawal order. The proper remedy is a direct challenge to the earlier order, not an attack on its correctness in subsequent litigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order granting withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, made in circumstances not contemplated by Order XXIII, Rule 1(2), is without jurisdiction and therefore void; (ii) whether a fresh suit instituted on the strength of such leave is incompetent; (iii) whether the court in the subsequent suit can examine the validity of the earlier order granting leave to withdraw and refile.

Issue (i): Whether an order granting withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, made in circumstances not contemplated by Order XXIII, Rule 1(2), is without jurisdiction and therefore void.

Analysis: Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and determine a cause. Once a court is competent to try the suit and to pass orders of the relevant kind, an erroneous or irregular exercise of that power does not destroy jurisdiction. A wrong order made within the sphere of jurisdiction may be reversible, but it is not a nullity merely because the statutory conditions for its proper exercise were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The order is not without jurisdiction and is not void.

Issue (ii): Whether a fresh suit instituted on the strength of such leave is incompetent.

Analysis: Where the withdrawal order has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction, it remains operative until set aside by a proper proceeding. It cannot be ignored as a nullity in later litigation. A fresh suit filed pursuant to such leave is therefore not barred merely because the leave may have been wrongly granted.

Conclusion: The fresh suit is competent.

Issue (iii): Whether the court in the subsequent suit can examine the validity of the earlier order granting leave to withdraw and refile.

Analysis: A later court cannot collaterally question the propriety of the earlier order once it was made by a court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass such orders. The proper remedy is a direct challenge in appropriate proceedings, not a collateral attack in the subsequent suit.

Conclusion: The subsequent court is not competent to go behind the earlier order.

Final Conclusion: The Full Bench answered the referred questions against the objection to the maintainability of the later suit, restored the trial court's decree, and held that an erroneous withdrawal order made by a competent court remains effective unless set aside in direct proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An order made by a court within its jurisdiction is not a nullity merely because it is erroneous or passed in improper exercise of that jurisdiction; until set aside in direct proceedings, it binds the parties and cannot be collaterally impeached in a later suit.

---