KAMTA Vs. GAYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learn ed counsel for the defendant-applicants, I do not think in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction I should interfere with the order of the Court below. In fact the order of the Court below is merely an order of correction of a pre vious order but at the same time it is true that by the terms of the impugn ed order the suit has been allowed to be withdrawn at the instance of plain tiff, under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE argument, however, rais ed on behalf of the applicants was that the defendants having secured a vested right, under the decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial court, the appel late court ought not to have given per mission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit as that would defeat the right of the defendants which endured to their benefit under the decree of dismissal of the suit. Reference was made to a learned Single Judge's decision of this Court in the case of Kedarnath v Chan dra Kiran, AIR 1962 All 263, in which it was held that Order 23, Rule 1, sub-rule (1) does not give an absolute right to the plaintiff to withdraw a suit at the stage of second appeal and the matter lay within the discretion of the court. It appears to me that sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23, Civil Proce dure Code, confers an unqualified right on the plaintiff to withdraw the suit at any time. Since an appeal is con tinuation of the suit, the right of the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit in heres even at the appellate stage. On the language of sub-rule (1) it is diffi cult to hold that the plaintiff had only a qualified right to withdraw from the suit. The Supreme Court in the case of Hulas Rai v. K. B. Bass and Co., AIR 1968 SC 111, observed as follows:-

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I dismiss this re vision with costs. Revision dismissed.