Court dismisses suit, allows revision petition, and awards costs based on barred cause of action.

The court allowed the revision petition, dismissed the suit, and awarded costs to the petitioner. The suit was found to be barred under Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Code as the present suit was based on the same cause of action as an earlier suit that was withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter. Despite attempts to create differences in the pleadings, the court determined that the causes of action in both suits were essentially the same, leading to the dismissal of the current suit.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Order 23, CPC due to withdrawal of an earlier suitRs.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a revision petition by the sixth additional defendant in a suit filed by the respondents seeking various reliefs related to property rights and injunctions. The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had withdrawn an earlier suit without specific permission to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter.

2. The main issue framed was whether the current suit was affected by the withdrawal of the earlier suit under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial court ruled against the petitioner, leading to the revision.

3. The plaintiffs in both suits did not claim independent rights over the property but acknowledged it belonged to a trust of which the first plaintiff was a trustee.

4. The earlier suit, filed by the first plaintiff as a trustee, sought similar reliefs regarding property management and injunctions. The court noted that the subject matter and parties in both suits were virtually the same, despite attempts to make the present suit appear different.

5. The court analyzed Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (4) of the CPC, emphasizing that a litigant must obtain court permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action to prevent abuse of the legal process. The court clarified that the cause of action, not just the property, determines if a suit is barred under this rule.

6. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision to explain the concept of "subject matter of the suit" and concluded that the present suit was based on the same cause of action as the earlier suit, despite attempts to create differences in the pleadings.

7. Despite a different decision cited by the respondents, the court found that the causes of action in the two suits were essentially the same, leading to the conclusion that the present suit was not distinct from the earlier suit.

8. The respondents argued about a subsequent agreement affecting the trustee's rights, but the court noted that the core issue remained the same - seeking an injunction against interference with the trustee's management rights. As the plaintiffs withdrew the earlier suit without liberty to file a fresh suit, the present suit was held to be barred under Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (4) of the CPC.

In conclusion, the court allowed the revision petition, dismissed the suit, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

---