Jheky lnL;-&;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼ftls rRipkr~ la{ksi esa ^vf/kfu;e 1956* dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 84 ds vUrxZr vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 7-1-98 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- izdj.k ds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gSa fd xzke cq<h ckoy ds ukekUrj.k la- 801 ds }kjk [kkrsnkj yYyw iq= Qwlk 1@7] uanjke iq= nkrkjke 1@7 [kkrk la- 485 ,oa yYyw iq= Qwlk] uanjke iq= nkrkjke fgLlk 2@7 [kkrk la- 267 dh Hkwfe dk tfj, jftLVMZ foØ; i= fnukad 27-7-94 ls djk, tkus ij cgd d`".k] Hkjrflag firk /keZiky 2@7 [kksyk x;k] ftls mi ljiap xzke iapk;r cq<h ckoy }kjk fnukad 26-9-85 dks Lohd`r fd;k x;kA mDr vknsk ls vlarq"V gksdj Hkheflag us izFke vihy mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fdkux<+ckl ds ;gka izLrqr dh] ftls mUgksaus muds fu.kZ; fnukad 6-3-97 }kjk Lohdkj djrs gq, xzke iapk;r cq<hckoy dk fu.kZ; fnukad 26-9-95 ckcr bUrdky la- 801 xzke cq<hckoy fujLr dj fn;k rFkk izdj.k xzke iapk;r cq<hckoy dk izfrizsf"kr dj ds funsZfkr fd;k fd os mDr bUrdky ds laca/k esa iw.kZ tkap dj rFkk i{kdkjku dks lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj nsdj iqu% viuk fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA fu.kZ; fnukad 6-3-97 ls O;fFkr gksdj vihykFkhZ d`".k dqekj o Hkjrflag us vihy la- 21@97 vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj ds U;k;ky; esas izLrqr dhA vihy ds fopkjk/khu jgrs xzke iapk;r cq<hckoy us mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fdkux<+ckl ds vknsk fnukad 6-3-97 ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djrs gq, ukekUrj.k la- 801 dks iqu% orZeku izkFkhZx.k d`".k dqekj o Hkjrflag ds uke vius vknsk fnukad 27-5-97 }kjk Lohd`r dj fn;kA vknsk fnukad 27-5-97 ds ikfjr gksus ds ipkr~ orZeku izkFkhZx.k us vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr t;iqj ds le{k ;g fuosnu fd;k fd mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us fjek.M vknsk ds rgr fnukad 27-5-97 dks xzke iapk;r us iqu% muds i{k esa vknsk ikfjr dj fn;k gS] vr% mudh ;g vihy fu"Qy gks tkrh gS vkSj pykuk ugha pkgrs blfy, [kkfjt dj nh tkosaA vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr us vihy Lohdkj djrs gq, mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fdkux<+ckl ds vknsk fnukad 6-3-97 dks fujLr dj fn;k ,oa lkFk gh ukekUrj.k la- 801 ij ikfjr xzke iapk;r dk vknsk fnukad 26-9-95 cq<h ckoy ds ckn ds vknsk fnukad 27-5-97 dks Lor% gh izHkkoghu gksuk ekukA mDr vknsk ls O;fFkr gksdj orZeku izkFkhZx.k us izuxr fuxjkuh jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa izLrqr dhA 3- fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k dks lquk x;k o fuxjkuh dks fu.kZ; gsrq fnukad 26-6-2008 dks lqjf{kr j[kk x;kA fnukad 30-6-2008 dks vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ,d izkFkZuk i= isk fd;k rFkk mlds lkFk fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dhA izkFkZuk i= esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k fd ^^vr% Jheku ls izkFkZuk gS fd mDr muokuh fuxjkuh tks fuxjkdkj dh vksj ls mldh cgl gks pqdh gS ,oa fu.kZ; gsrq fjtoZ esa j[kh gqbZ gS] esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fyf[kr cgl tfj, odhy Jh mxzlsu ,MoksdsV i=koyh ij yh tkdj bls vizkFkhZ dh cgl ekuh tkdj izdj.k dk fu.kZ; iznku djkosaA egfr d`ik gksxhA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl layXu dh tk jgh gSA** 4- eSaus izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ij euu fd;k o v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ksa dk v/;;u fd;k ,oa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 30-6-2008 ij fopkj fd;kA 5- izuxr izdj.k esa fnukad 26-6-2008 dks izkFkhZx.k dh cgl lqudj vknsk lqjf{kr j[kk x;kA fnukad 30-6-2008 dks vizkFkhZx.k us vkosnu i= o fyf[kr cgl izLrqr dhA vknsk 8 fu;e 2 ¼3d½ lhihlh bl izdkj gS%& ^^,d ekeys esa dksbZ i{kdkj ekSf[kd cgl lEcksf/kr dj ldrk gS vkSj ekSf[kd cgl lekIr djus ls igys ;fn dksbZ gks] vkSj ;fn U;k;ky; vuqefr ns rks vius ekeys ds leFkZu esa fyf[kr cgl laf{kIr :i vkSj lqfHkUu kh"kZdksa esa U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ dj ldrk gS vkSj ,slk cgl vfHkys[k dk Hkkx gksxkA** vizkFkhZx.k us ekSf[kd cgl esa Hkkx ugha fy;k bl dkj.k vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr cgl dks eSa vfHkys[k ij ysuk mfpr ugha le>rkA 6- izuxr izdj.k esa ;g fufoZokn gS fd foØ; i= fnukad 28-2-80 ls [kljk ua- 555 jdck 2 ch?kk 5 fcLok dh Hkwfe osn izdkk iq= nwyhpan us Hkheflag iq= HkkbZ jkeflag dks cspku dj nh vkSj blh Hkwfe dk cspku fnukad 27-7-04 dks izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa dj fn;kA Hkheflag us ,d nkok ckcr bLrdjkjgd] nqjLrh bUnzkt o gqDe bErukbZ dk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fdkux<+ckl ds U;k;ky; esa fnukad 6-7-90 dks isk dj fn;k vkSj blh nkSjku fooknxzLr vkjkth dk foØ; izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fd;k x;kA eSa izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl dFku ls lger ugha gwa fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr vihy fu"Qy gks xbZ gS] D;ksafd vihy vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr FkhA vihy ds izR;kgj.k dks Lohdkj ;k vLohdkj djus dh kfDr lkekU; ugha gSa vfirq foosdk/khu gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us K.S. Bhoopathy vs. Kokila, (2000) 5 SCC 458 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "The provision in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is an exception to the common law principle of non-suit. Therefore on principle an application by a plaintiff under sub-rule (3) cannot be treated on a par with an application by him in exercise of the absolute liberty given to him under sub-rule (1). In the former it is actually a prayer for concession from the court after satisfying the court regarding existence of the circumstances justifying the grant of such concession. No doubt, the grant of leave envisaged in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 is at the discretion of the court but such discretion is to be exercised by the court with caution and circumspection. The legislative policy in the matter of exercise of discretion is clear from the provisions of sub-rule (3) in which two alternatives are provided; first where the court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, and the other where the court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. Clause (b) of sub-rule (3) contains the mandate to the court that it must be satisfied about the sufficiency of the grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the same claim or part of the claim on the same cause of action. The Court is to discharge the duty mandated under the provision of the Code on taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter including the desirability of permitting the party to start a fresh round of litigation on the same cause of action. This becomes all the more important in a case where the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 is filed by the plaintiff at the stage of appeal. Grant of leave in such a case would result in the unsuccessful plaintiff to avoid the decree or decrees against him and seek a fresh adjudication of the controversy on a clean slate. It may also result in the contesting defendant losing the advantage of adjudication of the dispute by the court or courts below. Grant of permission for withdrawal of a suit with leave to file a fresh suit may also result in annulment of a right vested in the defendant or even a third party. It may also result in the contesting defendant losing the advantage of adjudication of the dispute by the court or courts below. Grant of permission for withdrawal of a suit with leave to file a fresh suit may also result in annulment of a right vested in the defendant or even a third party. The appellate/second appellate court should apply its mind to the case with a view to ensure strict compliance with the conditions prescribed in Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC for exercise of the discretionary power in permitting the withdrawal of the suit with leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Yet another reason in support of this view is that withdrawal of a suit at the appellate/second appellate stage results in wastage of public time of courts which is of considerable importance in the present time in view of large accumulation of cases in lower courts and inordinate delay in disposal of the cases." blh fu.kZ; ds iSjk ua- 17 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us dgk gS fd%& "The High Court does not appear to have considered the relevant aspects of the matter. Its approach appears to have been that since the interest of the defendants can be safeguarded by giving them permission for user of the pathway till adjudication of the controversy in the fresh suit to be filed, permission for withdrawal of the suit as prayed for can be granted. Such an approach is clearly erroneous. It is the duty of the court to feel satisfied that there exist proper grounds/reasons for granting permission for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file fresh suit by the plaintiffs and in such a matter the statutory mandate is not complied with by merely stating that grant of permission will not prejudice the defendants. It is the duty of the court to feel satisfied that there exist proper grounds/reasons for granting permission for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file fresh suit by the plaintiffs and in such a matter the statutory mandate is not complied with by merely stating that grant of permission will not prejudice the defendants. In case such permission is granted at the appellate or second appellate stage prejudice to the defendant is writ large as he loses the benefit of the decision in his favour in the lower court." ;fn ,d ckj Hkwfe iathd`r foØ; i= }kjk vizkFkhZx.k dks foØ; dj nh xbZ rks lkekU;r% nwljs O;fDr dks foØ; djus ij mlds i{k esa dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj mRiUu ugha gksrsA foØ; djus ds ckn Hkwfe esa foØsrk ds gd lekIr gks tkrs gSA ;gh er jktLo e.My dh o`gnihB us vkjvkjMh 1979 i`"B 01 dsfj;k cuke lkaofy;k esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA izuxr izdj.k esa [kljk ua- 544 jdck 2 ch?kk 5 fcLok Hkwfe dk foØ; fnukad 28-2-80 dks osn izdkk us vizkFkhZ Hkheflag ds i{k esa fd;kA mDr rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izkFkhZx.k dks vihy ds izR;kgj.k dh Lohd`fr iznku ugha dh] og esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh =qfV ds vUrxZr ugha vkrhA miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZ Hkheflag Øsrk ,d funksZ"k O;fDr gS vkSj mlds fgr dks cpkuk U;k;ky; dh ftEesnkjh gSA ogh ftEesnkjh vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj us fuHkkbZ gSA 7- vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 7-1-98 }kjk lejh izksflfMax dh LFkfxr djrs gq, fu;fer okn esa fu.kZ; gksus ij rn~uqlkj dk;Zokgh djus ds vknsk fn,] mlesa dksbZ vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh =qfV ugha gSA jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us ckyfdku cuke jruyky vkjvkjMh 1985 i`"B 170 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& "In suit No. 147/70 the same question is to be determined by the competent court. Naturally the rights of the parties in respect of the land under mutation will be finally decided by the result of the suit. If two proceedings one of summary nature and the other of a regular trial are allowed to proceed simultaneously interest of justice requires that the summary proceedings ought to be stayed and parties should not be permitted to litigate over the same matter in different courts and in different proceedings. If two proceedings one of summary nature and the other of a regular trial are allowed to proceed simultaneously interest of justice requires that the summary proceedings ought to be stayed and parties should not be permitted to litigate over the same matter in different courts and in different proceedings. In my opinion every court has inherent powers to stay proceedings pending before in and whenever interest of justice requires it do so. Due to the circumstances as stated above I feel it necessary to stay the summary proceedings so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and complications of account of the possibility of summary proceedings being decided in favour of the other party. A regular suit was pending in the court of Asstt. Collector was in the knowledge of Gram Panchayat and both the appllate courts, still the subordinate authorities did not care to stay the summary proceedings which was necessary in the interest of justice." 8- mi;qZDr foospuk ds ifjizs{; esa vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] t;iqj ds vknsk fnukad 7-1-98 esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ;k vfu;ferrk n`f"Vxkspj ugha gksrhA vr% ;g fuxjkuh cyghu gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA 9- vknsk [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA