Sadhna Jain &
ANR. Vs. Sheikh Khalikuzzama (D) by LRS. & Ors.  INSC 1477 (1
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5527 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.8709/2004) Sadhna Jain & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Sheikh
Khalikuzzama(d) By ...Respondents Lrs. & Ors.
O R D E R
Although, notices had
not been served upon respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and 20 & 21, it is stated by
Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the
plaintiffs having been served with the notice and they are appearing, it is not
necessary for the disposal of the appeal to serve respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and
20 & 21.
In view of the
statement made by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, service of notice upon the unserved
respondents is waived.
This appeal is
directed against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2004 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal NO. 356 of
2004 whereby and whereunder leave to withdraw the suit filed by the
plaintiff-respondents herein has been granted, upon setting aside the decree
passed by the learned trial Judge in Suit No. 177 of 1995.
plaintiff-respondents filed the aforementioned Suit for injunction and
declaration before the Civil Judge, Mirzapur.
-1- In the year 1999
the appellants herein were impleaded as parties. Both parties adduced evidence.
When the Suit was fixed for argument, an application seeking permission to
withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit, on the ground that the appellants have
purchased the property and therefore different reliefs have to be claimed in a
fresh suit, was filed. The said application was dismissed by an order dated
Plaintiffs have not moved this application only with the motive to harass the
defendants. His application is moved at the stage of Judgment. For the
submissions and facts argued by the defendants I Perused the order sheet Plaint
and find that the present suit was filed by Plaintiffs in the year 1995 for
permanent injunction and during pendency of the suit in the year 1999
Plaintiffs arrayed alleged purchasers and parties and plaintiffs have continued
the said suit on same facts, if according to plaintiffs due to alleged transfer
the circumstances of the suit was changed then the steps for withdrawal of suit
should have been taken at that time, but Plaintiffs adduced their evidence and
forced defendants to adduce their evidence and suit was fixed for a final
arguments for final disposal of the suit."
Thereafter, on or
about 7.10.2003, another application was filed for withdrawal of the Suit. The
said application was also dismissed. The plaintiff- respondents filed a Civil
Revision No. 786/2003 there against before the Allahabad High Court. It is
stated at the Bar that the said revision application is still pending.
On or about
6.12.2003, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit. A First Appeal was
-2- The said appeal
has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment stating:
" The position
would be different where the suit has already been decreed and the prayer for
withdrawal of the suit is made in a pending appeal, when a judgment is
delivered certain rights and liabilities accrue, and hence there is no
unconditional right in the plaintiff to withdraw the suit before the appellate
court. It is the discretion of the appellate court to allow or not to allow
withdrawal of the suit, though of course in view of Order 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C.
the trial Court can impose costs on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is
precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of the subject matter.
However, once an application for unconditional withdrawal of the suit is filed,
the Court has no right thereafter to proceed and pronounce judgment on the
merit of the case.
For the reasons
stated above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 9.12.2003 is
set aside and the suit is dismissed with costs."
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the
High Court has committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment as it
has failed to take into consideration the fact that the prayer for withdrawal
of the Suit had been dismissed by the learned trial Judge for the second time by
the aforementioned order dated 7.10.2003 and in view of the fact that the civil
revision application theragainst has been filed, the High Court could not have
passed the impugned order.
Although, the High
Court apparently appears to have made inconsistent orders insofar as on the one
hand it has allowed the appeal and on the other hand dismissed the suit but
upon a fair reading of the entire order, we are of the opinion that by reason
thereof, the High Court merely permitted the plaintiff- respondents to withdraw
the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit subject to the conditions mentioned
-3- The judgment of
the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be sustained for more than one reason;
firstly, no application was filed for withdrawal of the suit and secondly the
plaintiff-respondents might have merely brought to its notice that it had filed
such an application before the learned trial Judge but it appears from the
impugned judgment that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the
fact that the application has already been dismissed and civil revision there against
has been filed.
In that view of the
matter, the High Court could not have permitted the appellants to withdraw the
suit with liberty granted to file a fresh suit until and unless a prayer there for
For the reasons
aforementioned, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to
the High Court for consideration of the same afresh.
The appeal is
allowed. No costs.
[ CYRIAC JOSEPH ]
Delhi, September 1, 2008.