SIDDAGANGAPPA Vs. THIMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 26-5-2000 rejecting I. A. XII in O. S. No. 157/96, the plaintiff has presented this revision petition. The said application was filed under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) C. P. C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

(2.) I Have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under revision. The trial Court observed that recording of evidence was concluded on 4-2-2000 and instead of arguing the case, the plaintiff filed I. A. XI seeking amendment of plaint sketch and the said application was rejected on 9-3-2000. Thereafter I. A. XII was filed. The trial Court found that the technical defect sought to be made-out by the plaintiff in not showing the new house of the defendant having door towards East in the sketch, is not at all necessary to decide the actual dispute relating to the space in front of the houses of both the parties. It was also found that at this stage it was not proper to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and to permit to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. Since the suit has reached the final stage, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. The same cannot be interfered with by this court.

(3.) IT is to be observed that the Courts are flooded with lakhs of cases and each case consumes considerable time to reach finality. Litigants are eagerly waiting for disposal of their cases. Such being the position of the Courts, allowing a party to prosecute the suit filed by him till it reaches its fag end and thereafter grant of permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action leads to multiplicity of proceedings and the Courts are not in a position to afford trying such multiple proceedings in respect of same cause of action unless special circumstances warrant. Having regard to the precious time spent for the trial of the suit, the rejection of application is justified. The reliance placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in air 1968 SC 111 is misplaced as the ratio laid down in that case is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case.