Unconditional withdrawal without leave bars a fresh suit on the same cause of action and triggers res judicata and claim-splitting limits.

Unconditional withdrawal of a suit without leave to file afresh amounts to abandonment of the claim and prevents re-agitation of the same subject-matter in a later suit. Where the earlier decree has attained finality and the subsequent suit concerns the same foundational claim over title, possession and khatedari rights, the bar of res judicata applies. The court also treated the later suit as an impermissible splitting of claims under Order 2 Rule 2 because reliefs that ought to have been claimed earlier were omitted. The second suit was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's second suit was barred after unconditional withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave to institute a fresh suit. (ii) Whether the second suit was barred by res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in view of the earlier decree and the same subject-matter.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's second suit was barred after unconditional withdrawal of the earlier suit without leave to institute a fresh suit.

Analysis: The Court held that the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 discourages multiple suits on the same subject-matter and that withdrawal of a suit without permission under Order 23 Rule 1(3) carries the consequence of abandonment of the claim. It further held that a plaintiff cannot circumvent the statutory bar by filing another suit during the pendency of the earlier one or by later withdrawing the earlier suit. The Court treated the plaintiff's conduct as an attempt to re-agitate the same dispute after having waived the earlier contest.

Conclusion: The second suit was barred and was not maintainable; this was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the second suit was barred by res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in view of the earlier decree and the same subject-matter.

Analysis: The Court found that the earlier decree in favour of the non-petitioners had attained finality and that the petitioner had already litigated the same core claim concerning title, possession, and khatedari rights. It held that the subsequent suit merely repackaged the same cause of action with altered pleadings and that the petitioner had omitted reliefs which ought to have been claimed earlier. On this reasoning, the Court applied the bar of res judicata and the prohibition against splitting claims under Order 2 Rule 2.

Conclusion: The second suit was barred by res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2; this was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner could not reopen a concluded dispute by instituting a later suit on the same foundational claim after abandoning the earlier one.

Ratio Decidendi: Unconditional withdrawal of a suit without leave to file afresh amounts to abandonment of the claim and bars re-agitation of the same subject-matter, especially where the later suit also repeats the same foundational cause of action and omitted reliefs.

---