Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3227 (MAD)

P. Palanisamy Gounder v. K. Muthusamy

2015-10-05

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
ORDER 1. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 11 of 2013 on the file of learned District Munsif, Kangeyam. The first and second respondents herein are the plaintiffs therein. They filed the suit for permanent injunction. Later, they filed I.A. No. 1317 of 2014 in O.S. No. 11 of 2013 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a comprehensive suit. The Trial Court allowed the application in I.A. No. 1317 of 2014 in O.S. No. 11 of 2013 by order dated 17.3.2015. The present revision petition is filed against the aforesaid order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, filed the suit for permanent injunction. Now, they also seek the prayer of declaration, for which they wanted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and the Trial Court has also allowed the same. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has vehemently contended that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the application to file a comprehensive suit. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 5. The Trial Court has passed a detailed order while allowing I.A. No. 1317 of 2014 in O.S. No. 11 of 2013. The Trial Court has recorded the following finding for allowing the application:- "In the present case the suit is at the trial stage and therefore this Court is of the view by permitting the petitioners to withdraw the suit there would not be any prejudice to the respondents. If the petitioners comes forward with a separate comprehensive suit on the same cause of action, then the right of the petitioners and the respondents would be agitated and a comprehensive finding with regard to the title and possession of the suit property can be adjudged. Though the petitioners would have filed this application at the earlier stage, the petitioners have allowed the proceedings to continue till the suit is reached at the stage of trial. Therefore this court is of the view that on the fulfillment of certain conditions, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the suit. Though the petitioners would have filed this application at the earlier stage, the petitioners have allowed the proceedings to continue till the suit is reached at the stage of trial. Therefore this court is of the view that on the fulfillment of certain conditions, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the suit. This court also had an occasion to refer to the judgment reported in 2013 (1) Law Weekly 385. In the above decision, the Hon'ble High Court has also held the object of order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to give power to the court to allow the plaintiff at any time to withdraw his suit unconditionally or to withdraw from the suit on the fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein." In my considered view, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners if permission is granted to file a comprehensive suit by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 11 of 2013. Hence, the Trial Court thought it fit to allow the application by permitting the respondents 1 and 2 herein to withdraw the suit. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 6. In the result, the order of the learned District Munsif, Kangeyam dated 17.3.2015 made in I.A. No. 1317 of 2014 in O.S. No. 11 of 2013 is confirmed and civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.