SATYANARAYAN HIRALAL Vs. CHOTELAL ONKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' application for revision of an order passed on 5th August 1946 by Mr. J.P. Jain, Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in civil Appeal No. 26-A of 1946. By this order the learned Judge allowed the plaintiff-appellant to withdraw his suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was for possession of a house site valued at Rs. 26. The title of the plaintiff was based on a receipt dated 1st October 1943. The plaint made the following averments in this behalf: 5. That in course of time the house fell down and the entire site covered by the compound and courtyard was sold by Ghisulal to the plaintiff for Rs. 26 under receipt dated 1st October 1943 and possession was also delivered to the plaintiff.... The trial Court decreed a portion of the claim. Both sides appealed. During the pendency of his appeal the plaintiff-appellant applied under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. and the Additional District Judge permitted the withdrawal of the suit. The order reads as follows: 5-8-46. Parties as above. I have heard both sides. The suit is likely to fail for technical reasons and a mistake. The appellant never took the plea about the admissibility of the receipt dated 1st October 1943. For this reason, the parties will be ordered to bear their own costs as incurred. The suit is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Parties to bear their own costs' as incurred in both the Courts. The only question is whether the order of the lower appellate Court is correct regard being had to the terms of the rule.

(3.) NOW Order 23, Rule 1 has been the subject of discussion in numerous rulings. It is now settled law that the words 'other sufficient cause' do not include any cause whatever but only causes which are at least analogous to a formal defect. As early as Robert Watson & Co. v. Collector of Zillah Rajshahye 13 M.I.A 160, 170 their Lordships of the Privy Council explaining Section 373 of the old Code stated that a suit could only be withdrawn if there was a defect of form. The present Code hardly goes further than the observations of their Lordships. Similarly, the words 'any other sufficient cause' appearing in Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., were explained by their Lordships in Chhajju Ram v. Neki A.I.R. (9) 1922 P.C. 112 as meaning 'a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously.' This meaning has now been accepted as final in respect of Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C., also. In some cases Courts have relied on the ejusdem generis rule, but the better view is to interpret the rule on the line adopted by their Lordships in Chhajju Ram v. Neki A.I.R. (9) 1922 PC 112.