https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200192 A finding recorded in an earlier suit withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh did not operate as res judicata in later proceedings under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Once withdrawal with liberty is permitted, the suit is treated in law as having no existence, the parties revert to their pre-suit position, and the bar in Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC does not apply on those facts. The earlier findings therefore could not bind the subsequent proceeding, and the tenant's challenge on that ground failed; the revisional challenge was rejected and the order against the tenant was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:49:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200192 A finding recorded in an earlier suit withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh did not operate as res judicata in later proceedings under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Once withdrawal with liberty is permitted, the suit is treated in law as having no existence, the parties revert to their pre-suit position, and the bar in Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC does not apply on those facts. The earlier findings therefore could not bind the subsequent proceeding, and the tenant's challenge on that ground failed; the revisional challenge was rejected and the order against the tenant was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200192