BANKIMCHANDRA Vs. RADHAKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Second Civil Judge Class II, Indore, dt. 6-2-1984 wherein the learned Judge allowed an application submitted by the non-applicant-plaintiff for withdrawal of the ground under S.12(1)(e) seeking permission to file a suit on that ground before the Rent Controller in accordance with the M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No. 27 of 1983). Apparently this application was made under S.12 of that Act and the learned Judge by the impugned order only said that the application is allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this application prayer in made for withdrawal of the ground under S.12(1)(e) whereas in fact in the suit itself there is no ground under S.12(1)(e) but there is a ground under S.12(1)(f). It was also contended that in fact the suit is filed on various grounds. Section 12(1)(f) is one of them, and, therefore, in view of the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure such a withdrawal of one ground for permission to file a separate suit could not be granted and it was also contended that such is not also the interpretation of S.12 of the Amending Act of 1983. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, placed reliance on Nanuram v. Pundlik.

(3.) Learned counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, contended that the mention of S.12(1)(e) instead of S.12(1)(f) appears to be a clerical error. There was already an application filed earlier in which S.12(1)(f) was mentioned. It was, therefore, contended that on this ground the order could not be said to be bad as apparently it is a clerical mistake. It is not disputed that one of the grounds mentioned in the application is S.12(1)(f) and not S.12(1)(e). It was also contended by the learned counsel that although in the scheme of the Civil PC splitting up of a cause of action is not permissible but S.12(2) of the Amending Act of 1983 clearly permits this and it was contended that to this extent the view taken in the judgment reported in 1984 MPRCJ 184 on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct and he, therefore, contended that this deserves reconsideration. According to the learned counsel, the language of sub-sec.(2) of S.12 does not refer only to suit before the Rent Controlling Authority and the last part of the section which says "withdraw the suit in relation to said grounds" clearly indicates that permission under sub-sec.(2) could be granted for withdrawal of the suit partly pertaining to that ground only and on this ground it was contended that under S.12(2) such a part withdrawal of the suit is permissible and as this is a special enactment, the objection on the basis of the scheme of the Civil PC will not be available to the petitioner.