Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 563 (MP)

Kamlesh Kumar Thapak v. State of M. P.

2014-05-08

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. Counsel of the respondents No.2 to 6 against seeks adjournment to file the reply of IA No.1333/14, petitioner's application for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file fresh petition by mentioning some additional facts, which could not be mentioned in the present petition. 2. In the available circumstances, I am not inclined to grant further time to file reply of aforesaid IA. Hence, such prayer of the counsel of aforesaid respondents for adjournment is rejected. 3. Counsel of the respondents No.1 and 7 are categorically stated that they do not want to file the reply of this IA. 4. On taking up the aforesaid IA for hearing, the respondents No.2 to 6 submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition by mentioning some false averments and in support of such averments false affidavit has also been filed with the petition. So, in such premises unless the inquiry in this regard is carried out the petitioner could not be permitted to withdraw this petition. 5. I am of the considered view the petitioner who filed the present petition, in view of the spirit of provision of Order 23 rule 1 of CPC has unfettered right to withdraw his petition, if any liberty is not prayed to file fresh petition on the basis of same averments and cause of action stated in the present petition. So, in such premises this IA could be considered, hence the same is taken up for consideration. 6. In the course of the arguments on the aforesaid IA on asking the petitioner's counsel, although petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition, as not pressed but in the available circumstances how the liberty to file the fresh petition by mentioning additional facts and annexing the documents on the basis of same cause of action for the same relief could be given, on which such counsel submits that he does not want to press this application for extending the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition on the basis of averments, cause of action and relief mentioned in the present petition and prayed to dismiss the same as withdrawn and not pressed without extending any liberty to file the fresh petition. 7. The counsel of the respondents No.2 to 6 submits that on the aforesai? request of t?? 7. The counsel of the respondents No.2 to 6 submits that on the aforesai? request of t?? petitioner the present petition could not be dismissed as withdrawn even without extending any liberty unless inquiry with respect of aforesaid false averments made by the petitioner in the petition as well as in the affidavit is carried out and prayed for dismissal of aforesaid IA. 8. I am of the considered view that this petition has neither been filed by the respondents No.2 to 6 nor any counter prayer is made by such respondents. So, in such premises, by allowing the IA in part the petitioner could be permitted to withdraw this petition without extending any further liberty to file the fresh petition with further observation that if there is any fault on the part of the petitioner on account of stating false averments either in the petition or in affidavit then respondents shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedingbefore the appropriate forum permissible under the law. 9. In view of aforesaid, by allowing aforesaid IA No.1333/14, in part the petition is hereby dismissed, as withdrawn without extending any liberty to file fresh petition on same averments, cause of action or for the same relief. However, it is observed that respondents No.2 to 6 shall be at liberty to take appropriate step permissible under the law before the appropriate forum for grant of appropriate relief, as prayed by their counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.