TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit can be split, allowing withdrawal while refusing leave to institute a fresh suit, and whether such splitting is legally permissible.
Analysis: An application made under Order XXIII Rule 1(2) seeks a composite relief, namely withdrawal of the suit coupled with permission to bring a fresh suit on the same subject-matter. The distinction between sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) is material: sub-rule (1) permits unconditional withdrawal, while sub-rule (2) governs withdrawal with liberty to sue afresh upon satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. Once the plaintiff invokes sub-rule (2), the Court cannot sever the prayer into two parts, grant withdrawal alone, and deny the accompanying liberty, because that course would leave the plaintiff without the benefit sought and without continuation of the original suit. The proper course is either to reject the application in entirety or to allow it in entirety, subject to costs where appropriate.
Conclusion: The splitting of the composite prayer was impermissible and amounted to material irregularity. The plaintiff was entitled to withdraw the suit against the concerned defendants with liberty to file a fresh suit, subject to payment of their costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A composite application under Order XXIII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be decided as a whole and cannot be partially allowed by permitting withdrawal while refusing liberty to sue afresh.
TaxTMI 
