SUMA RAMACHANDRA Vs. K.BASAVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 questioning the order of the learned Judge permitting the respondent No.1/plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

(2.) The respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of injunction in O.S.No.64/2009. By way of declaration, the respondent No.1/plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner in possession of schedule 'B' property and consequently, sought declaration that sale deed dtd. 22/12/2006 executed by the defendant No.4 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is a sham document and not binding on respondent No.1/plaintiff and consequently, sought perpetual injunction against the present petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) On receipt of summons, the present petitioners contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The present petitioners also set up a counter claim. Pending suit, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit and permit the respondent No.1 to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Said application was strongly resisted by the present petitioners who are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2. The present petitioners in their objections contended that the suit is of the year 2009 and at the fag end of the proceedings, the respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit. The petitioners alleged that respondent No.1/plaintiff intends to withdraw the suit without any valid grounds. The petitioners also contended that there is a counter claim set up by the petitioners herein and therefore, contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff can withdraw or abandon his claim but he cannot be reserved liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It was further contended that if respondent No.1/plaintiff is permitted to re-litigate on the same cause of action, then the petitioners have to expend valuable time which would also incur fiscal implications.