T.k. Abdul Razack Ravuthar And Others
v.
Mahammad Hanif Sahib And Another
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Civil Revision Petition No. 1459 Of 1945 | 22-03-1946
(Prayer: Petition (disposed of on 22-3-1946) under S. 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet, dated 24-7-1945 in I.A. No. 647 of 1945 in O.S. No. 64 of 1944.)
The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 64 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsif of Udumalpet. The petitioner in the lower Court was permitted by the Court to withdraw that suit under the provisons of O. 23, R. 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The terms in which the order allowing the petitioner to withdraw his suit was passed were these: The District Munsif first of all set out quite fully the reasons given by the petitioner in support of his prayer for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and then he gave, also quite fully, the objections to this course put forward by the defendants; but having set out the contentions of both the parties he said nothing more than Petition allowed.
It is argued for the defendant-petitioners that it was imperative for the District Munsif to have given reasons for his order. In my opinion the contention is well founded. The terms of O. 23, R. 1(2) of the Code themselves make it clear that the Court must state either what the defect is or what are the other sufficient grounds which have moved it to grant permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. I have not been shown any authority of this Court on the subject but there is a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kamta Singh v. Bhagwandas (50 All. 199), in which it was held that reasons for holding that an application under O. 23, R. 1(2) of the Code should be granted must be stated and that failure to state them amounted to a material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction.
This petition is, therefore, allowed. The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the application is remanded for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations in this order. The costs of the petition will abide and follow the result of the application.
The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 64 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsif of Udumalpet. The petitioner in the lower Court was permitted by the Court to withdraw that suit under the provisons of O. 23, R. 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The terms in which the order allowing the petitioner to withdraw his suit was passed were these: The District Munsif first of all set out quite fully the reasons given by the petitioner in support of his prayer for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and then he gave, also quite fully, the objections to this course put forward by the defendants; but having set out the contentions of both the parties he said nothing more than Petition allowed.
It is argued for the defendant-petitioners that it was imperative for the District Munsif to have given reasons for his order. In my opinion the contention is well founded. The terms of O. 23, R. 1(2) of the Code themselves make it clear that the Court must state either what the defect is or what are the other sufficient grounds which have moved it to grant permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. I have not been shown any authority of this Court on the subject but there is a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kamta Singh v. Bhagwandas (50 All. 199), in which it was held that reasons for holding that an application under O. 23, R. 1(2) of the Code should be granted must be stated and that failure to state them amounted to a material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction.
This petition is, therefore, allowed. The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the application is remanded for fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations in this order. The costs of the petition will abide and follow the result of the application.
Advocates List
For the Appellants Messrs. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar, P.S. Srinivasa Desikan, Advocates. For the Respondents S.K. Ahmed Meeran, Advocate.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAPPELL
Eq Citation
(1946) 2 MLJ 113
1946 MWN 576
AIR 1947 MAD 59
LQ/MadHC/1946/102
HeadNote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 23 R. 1(2) — Withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit — Reasons for, must be stated
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.