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 permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit could be granted at the appellate stage under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Permission to withdraw with liberty to sue afresh can be granted only when the Court is satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of a formal defect or that there are sufficient grounds analogous to a formal defect. The expression "sufficient grounds" is to be construed ejusdem generis with formal defect. The power is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously at the appellate stage, because permitting withdrawal may deprive the successful party of the benefit of the decree and affect vested rights. A party who merely failed to conduct the suit properly cannot use this provision to avoid an adverse adjudication.
Conclusion: The request for withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit was rightly refused, as no sufficient ground was made out and the proposed withdrawal would prejudice the respondent's vested rights.
Final Conclusion: The revision challenging the refusal of permission to withdraw the suit was rejected, leaving the appellate decree and the respondent's benefit thereunder undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Permission under Order 23 Rule 1(3) is available only on proof of a formal defect or a sufficient ground of the same genus, and it cannot be used at the appellate stage to nullify an adverse decree or defeat vested rights.
TaxTMI 
