M. SUBBA RAO Vs. B. VASANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is admitted in so far as the order under appeal relates to disposal of W.P. No. 1657 of 2014. We do not require any notice to be served upon the writ petitioner/the first respondent as he would not be affected by the judgment and order proposed to be passed by us. The recordings of the Hon'ble trial Judge are good enough to decide the matter at this stage finally. It is the admitted position that after conclusion of the hearing, the writ petitioner tried to withdraw the writ petition, but permission was declined by the Hon'ble trial Judge. Therefore, the question arises as to whether refusal to allow withdrawal is a proper exercise of jurisdiction under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code).

(2.) SRI Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior Advocate, argued that assertion of the right of withdrawal of any suit by a suitor is not dependent upon the mercy of the Court. If the provision of the above Code is read carefully and meaningfully, it would appear that such an exclusive right has been given to the suitor. Asking for leave to withdraw is a matter of courtesy and respect to the Court and it is not intended to give the Court a power to exercise discretion.

(3.) WHILE reading the aforestated provision, we are in agreement with Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior Advocate. It is the absolute right of the suitor as the suitor can bring his lis of his own choice and wishes. Neither the Court nor anyone else can compel any person to come to the Court. With the parity of reasoning after having brought action, the litigant decides not to continue with his lis, such decision is final and no one can sit on that claim. We feel that asking for leave is only matter of courtesy and respect and grant of leave is matter of course not of discretion and it is manifest in Clause (b) sub -Rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Code, wherein words may grant are employed. If the suitor wants to bring fresh action on the self -same cause of action while asking for withdrawal of lis, then the power to allow such prayer is left with discretion of the Court and not with choice of the suitor. In other words, the suitor cannot claim, as a matter of right, the liberty to bring a fresh action on the self -same cause of action. Clause (b) sub -Rule (4) of Rule 1 of the Code wherein like Clause (b) sub -Rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Code words may grant permission are not mentioned.