Time-barred debt recovery and Order XXIII bar clarified: pending later suit is not defeated by earlier dismissal as not pressed.

A recovery claim under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be sustained where the underlying debt has already become time-barred, because an unenforceable claim is not legally recoverable debt. Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) CPC bars a fresh suit only when it is instituted after withdrawal or abandonment of an earlier suit without leave; it does not apply where the later suit was already pending when the earlier suit was dismissed as not pressed. On that basis, a later suit is not barred merely because an earlier suit on the same cause of action ended without a merits decision, and the injunction sought was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a recovery claim initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act could be sustained when the underlying debt was already time-barred; (ii) whether a subsequent suit was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure because an earlier suit on the same cause of action had been dismissed as not pressed.

Issue (i): whether a recovery claim initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act could be sustained when the underlying debt was already time-barred.

Analysis: The plaintiff's last payment was made long before the requisition for recovery was issued. Once limitation had expired, the debt could not be treated as legally recoverable. A claim cannot be regarded as a debt due when the legal remedy for enforcement is barred.

Conclusion: The recovery claim was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether a subsequent suit was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure because an earlier suit on the same cause of action had been dismissed as not pressed.

Analysis: Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) bars institution of a fresh suit after withdrawal or abandonment of an earlier suit without leave. That prohibition applies only where the later suit is instituted after such withdrawal. Where the subsequent suit was already pending when the earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed, the rule does not apply. A dismissal not on merits does not operate as a bar to the later suit.

Conclusion: The subsequent suit was not barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to the injunction sought, and the decree in his favour followed because the lower courts wrongly treated the second suit as barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) bars only a fresh suit instituted after withdrawal or abandonment of an earlier suit without leave, and does not apply to a suit already pending when the earlier suit is dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

---