JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This case is not free from difficulty. The short facts are these. The action is one practically for declaration of the Plaintiff's title to two plots of land, and for khas possession. Those plots may be referred to as plots Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that in respect of plot No. 2, the Plaintiff had brought an action previous to the present, not including in that action any claim in respect of plot No. 1. Under the provisions of sec. 373, C. C. P., the Plaintiff was permitted to withdraw from that suit, on condition of paying the costs. He did not, however, pay the costs and, in consequence, not having complied with the terms upon which the withdrawal was allowed, he must be taken to have withdrawn without the permission of the Court, in which case he would be liable for such costs as the Court might award, and be precluded from bringing a fresh suit for the same matter. In my opinion when a Plaintiff withdraws without permission, the suit, having regard to the language of the section, must be regarded as practically dismissed. The Plaintiff then brought the present suit in respect of both plots Nos. 1 and 2 and it is urged, on behalf of the Defendants, that the Plaintiff cannot succeed in respect of either of these plots on the following grounds. In respect of plot No. 2, it is said that, inasmuch as it was the subject-matter of the previous suit, and that suit was withdrawn without permission, he cannot bring a fresh suit for plot No. 2. The Courts below have adopted this view, as did Mr. Justice Mitra and in that view we concur. In respect of plot No. 1, the objection is that the Plaintiff ought to have included that claim in the previous action and, as he did not do so, and that action must be treated as dismissed, he cannot, having regard to sec. 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, now sue in respect of plot No. 1. This view has been adopted by the Courts below, but, on appeal, Mr. Justice Mitra has held that the suit may proceed in respect of plot No. 1. 2. With great respect I am unable to take that view. If the previous suit had been withdrawn with the permission of the Court under sec. This view has been adopted by the Courts below, but, on appeal, Mr. Justice Mitra has held that the suit may proceed in respect of plot No. 1. 2. With great respect I am unable to take that view. If the previous suit had been withdrawn with the permission of the Court under sec. 373, which as already pointed out, was not the case, I should have concurred in Mr. Justice Mitra's view, because the previous suit, in these circumstances, must be treated as, in effect, having been no suit at all : nothing was decided in it. But, inasmuch as the previous action in respect of plot No. 2 must be taken, in the circumstances, to have been practically dismissed, the Plaintiff cannot, having regard to sub-sec. 2 of sec. 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action for plot No. 1, the claim for which he ought to have included in the former suit, which suit has been practically dismissed. I think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed, and the decision of the Subordinate Judge restored with costs. Pratt, J. I am of the same opinion. Even if the Plaintiff had prosecuted his former action to a successful issue and had obtained a decree for plot No. 2, it is clear that he would have been debarred by sec. 43, C. 0, P., from suing to recover plot No. 1. It would be very anomalous if he could place himself in a better position than that of a successful litigant by withdrawing the first action without the leave of the Court. Such a withdrawal entails a statutory disability as expressed in sec. 373 and cannot, I think, have the effect of relegating him to the status quo ante which alone would entitle him to sue upon the entire cause of action covering both plots of land.