Plaintiffs' Request to Withdraw Suit Denied; Court Emphasizes Vested Rights Post-Decree; Amendment Request Also Rejected

The court denied the plaintiffs' request to withdraw their suit at the appellate stage, emphasizing that once a trial court has issued a decree, certain rights are vested in the prevailing party. The lower appellate court's decision to permit withdrawal was deemed illegal. The court set aside the order allowing withdrawal and directed the parties to resume proceedings before the District Judge. The plaintiffs' request to amend the plaint was also denied, with instructions to pursue such a request in the lower appellate court.

---

---

Issues:
Application for permission to withdraw suit at the appellate stage without formal defect.

Analysis:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration in 1978, which was dismissed in 1982. An appeal was filed against the dismissal, and subsequently, an application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence was made. However, before any orders were received on this application, the plaintiffs sought permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action in 1984. The District Judge allowed the withdrawal of the suit on payment of additional costs.

The defendants argued that the suit should not be allowed to be withdrawn at the appellate stage, especially when there was already a decree dismissing the suit. They contended that the suit had been pending for four years, and the plaintiffs only sought withdrawal as a last resort after the appeal was filed. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that there were sufficient grounds for allowing the withdrawal, even though there was no formal defect in the suit.

The court held that the plaintiffs could not be allowed to withdraw the suit at the appellate stage based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Referring to previous judgments, the court stated that once a decree is passed by the trial court, certain rights are vested in the party in whose favor the suit is decided. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to withdraw the suit as a matter of course after the trial court's decree. The lower appellate court was deemed to have acted illegally by allowing the withdrawal after setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree.

The plaintiffs' counsel requested an amendment of the plaint, but the court denied permission, stating that such a request should be made before the lower appellate court. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the parties to appear before the District Judge for further proceedings.

---