Supreme Court clarifies rules for withdrawal of suits under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2017

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 20007 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16749 of 2010)

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a plaintiff withdraw a suit at any time, and what are the limitations on a defendant’s ability to object? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This judgment clarifies the rights of a plaintiff to withdraw a suit and the circumstances under which a defendant can object.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Anil Kumar Singh, claimed ownership of a portion of land (suit land) and was running a brick kiln business there with a partner. In May 2006, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against respondent No. 1, Vijay Pal Singh, to prevent him from interfering with his possession of the land. Along with the suit, the appellant also sought a temporary injunction.

Initially, the Trial Court granted an ex-parte temporary injunction in favor of the appellant. Subsequently, the parties discussed a compromise, and the appellant applied to withdraw the suit. However, respondent No. 1 opposed this withdrawal. The Trial Court allowed the withdrawal subject to a cost of Rs. 350 to be paid to respondent No. 1. This order was upheld by the Additional District Judge, leading respondent No. 1 to file a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and directed the appellant to place respondent No. 1 in possession of the suit land. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule deals with the withdrawal of suits. It states that a plaintiff can abandon their suit at any time. However, there are different consequences depending on whether the plaintiff seeks permission to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter.

The relevant part of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is as follows:

“Order XXIII Rule 1
1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim –
(1) At any time after, the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim:
Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court.
(2)An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person.
(3)Where the court is satisfied,-
(a)that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or
(b)that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim,
it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim.
(4)Where the plaintiff-
(a)abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or
(b)withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3),
he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.
(5)Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorise the Court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiffs.”

In essence, if a plaintiff withdraws a suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, they are liable to pay costs to the defendant and are barred from filing a new suit on the same issue. However, if the plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw and file a fresh suit, the court can grant such permission on specific terms.

Arguments

The appellant (plaintiff) argued that they had the right to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the Trial Court was correct in allowing the withdrawal. They contended that the defendant could only object to the withdrawal if the plaintiff sought permission to file a fresh suit, which was not the case here. The appellant’s main submission was that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Trial Court’s order, which was in accordance with the law.

The respondent (defendant) argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order. The respondent contended that the appellant was trying to circumvent the process of law and that the High Court rightly directed the appellant to place the respondent in possession of the land.

Here is a table summarizing the submissions of both parties:

The innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in the sense that it emphasized the plaintiff’s right to withdraw a suit without needing permission from the Court, as long as they did not seek permission to file a fresh suit on the same matter. This interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was crucial in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court, which had allowed the appellant to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court analyzed the different sub-rules within Order XXIII Rule 1 to determine the rights of a plaintiff to withdraw a suit and the limitations on a defendant’s ability to object.

The legal provisions considered by the Court are:

• Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule governs the withdrawal of suits and was the central focus of the case.

Here is a table summarizing how the court considered the authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court. The Court held that the Trial Court was justified in permitting the appellant to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, and in such cases, the defendant cannot object except to claim costs.

Here’s how each submission was treated by the Court:

Here’s how each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Court extensively analyzed this provision and concluded that the Trial Court’s order was in accordance with sub-rule (1) and (4)(a) of this rule. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, and in such cases, the defendant cannot object except to claim costs.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized the plaintiff’s right to withdraw a suit and the limitations on a defendant’s objections. The Court also noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Trial Court’s order.

Here is a sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Here is the ratio of fact to law:

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered that the plaintiff had not sought permission to file a fresh suit, and therefore, the defendant’s objection was not valid. The Court also emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Trial Court’s order.

The Court stated:

“In our considered opinion, when the plaintiff files an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 and prays for permission to withdraw the suit, whether in full or part, he is always at liberty to do so and in such case, the defendant has no right to raise any objection to such prayer being made by the plaintiff except to ask for payment of the cost to him by the plaintiff as provided in sub-rule (4).”

“The reason is that while making a prayer to withdraw the suit under Rule 1(1), the plaintiff does not ask for any leave to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter. A mere withdrawal of the suit without asking for anything more can, therefore, be always permitted. In other words, the defendant has no right to compel the plaintiff to prosecute the suit by opposing the withdrawal of suit sought by the plaintiff except to claim the cost for filing a suit against him.”

“The High Court, however, committed jurisdictional error in allowing the defendant’s writ petition by finding fault in the orders of the Trial Court and Revision Court and giving directions to the plaintiff to place defendant No.1 in possession of the suit land without there being any basis whatsoever.”

Key Takeaways

✓ A plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit at any time without seeking permission to file a fresh suit.

✓ A defendant cannot object to the withdrawal of a suit unless the plaintiff seeks permission to file a fresh suit.

✓ The High Court should not interfere with the Trial Court’s order if it is in accordance with Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

✓ The defendant is at liberty to raise issues relating to his ownership and possession in relation to the suit land in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court. The Court clarified that the defendant would be at liberty to raise issues relating to his ownership and possession in relation to the suit land in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a plaintiff has the right to withdraw a suit at any time without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, and in such cases, the defendant cannot object except to claim costs. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and reinforces the plaintiff’s right to withdraw a suit. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh & Ors. clarifies the rights of a plaintiff to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that a plaintiff can withdraw a suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, and in such cases, the defendant cannot object except to claim costs. This judgment reinforces the plaintiff’s right to withdraw a suit and limits the defendant’s ability to object to such withdrawal.