JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants : a. declaration declaring that the Electoral College Liste dated 24.02.2020 issued by the 2nd Defendant and 4th Defendant returning officer to be ultra-virus the bylaws of the lst defendant and void and consequently grant permanent injunction restraining elections for the 1st defendant from being conducted based on the said Electoral College List dated 24.02.2020 b. Declaration declaring that the Electoral College List dated 26.02.2020 issued by the 3rd defendant and 5th defendant returning officer to be ultra-virus the bylaws of the 1st defendant and void and consequently grant permanent injunction restraining elections for the 1st defendant from being conducted based on the said Electoral College List dated 26.02.2020 c. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from conducting parallel elections in disregard to the bye-laws of the 1st defendant including by permitting assocaitions / units which are not contained in the official list of the 1st defendant to vote in the elections of the office bearers of the 1st defendant d. Cost of the suit e. such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayer in O.A.No.155 of 2020: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from proceeding with the elections of the office bearers of the 1st respondent, including those scheduled on 12.03.2020 and 15.03.2020, pending disposal of the suit. Prayer in O.A.No.155 of 2020: Original Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from proceeding with the elections of the office bearers of the 1st respondent, including those scheduled on 12.03.2020 and 15.03.2020, pending disposal of the suit. Prayer in A.No.1086 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to appoint a commissioner to inspect the records of the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and prepare an Electoral College List in strict compliance of the bye laws of the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and fil a report before this Court pending disposal of the suit Prayer in A.No.1087 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to permit joinder of causes of action in respect of the parallel elections proposed to be conducted for electing the office bearers of the 1st defendant on 12.03.2020 and 15.03.2020 by the respondents Prayer in A.No.2640 of 2020: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to permit the Plaintiff to withdraw C.S.No.113 of 2020.) The Plaintiff has filed the suit praying to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants for declarations that the Electoral College List dated 24.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 issued by the 2nd and 4th Defendants and 3rd and 5th Defendants respectively, are ultra vires the byelaws of the 1st Defendant and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the conduct of the elections on 12.03.2020 and 15.03.2020 on the basis of the above Electoral College List. In the above suit O.A.No.155 of 2020 has been filed for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding with the election of the office bearers of the 1st Defendant, including those scheduled on 12.03.2020. The Plaintiff also filed Applications seeking permission of this court for joinder of causes of action in respect of the parallel election and praying to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the records of the 1st Defendant and prepare Electoral College List in strict compliance of the bye laws. 2. The Plaintiff also filed Applications seeking permission of this court for joinder of causes of action in respect of the parallel election and praying to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the records of the 1st Defendant and prepare Electoral College List in strict compliance of the bye laws. 2. Applications also filed by the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association and Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal to implead them as defendants in the suit. Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal mainly contended that they have not been invited to participate in tournaments or event conducted by VFI since July 2017. Despite correspondence sent to them, the same was returned to the applicant association as 'unclaimed'. Writ Petition also filed before the Uttrakhand High Court in W.P.No.3790 of 2019 and the same is pending. Similarly, another writ petition in W.P.No.538 of 2020 filed by the Applicant before the Uttrakhand High Court to include the applicant's unit in the list of electoral college of upcoming elections on 15.03.2020, the High Court of Uttrakhand vide order dated 28.02.2020 directed the Returning Officer to take appropriate decision on the Petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2020. However, the Returning Officer without considering the fact that the petitioner's association is the only association affiliated to the VFI and without providing any reasons, published the electoral college on 29.02.2020 retaining Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Singh and one Mr.Mitun Jain, who are not members of the Petitioners association nor member of any affiliate unit from the State of Uttrakhand. Therefore, their contention that the present election is contrary to the guidelines given by the 1st Respondent vide letter dated 17.02.2020. Therefore, they filed the petition to implead them as defendant in the suit. 3. It is the contention of the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association that the President of the Volleyball Federation of India has committed serious irregularities and CBI enquiry is also commenced against him. The suit is engineered by the 3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant Mr.Vasudevan who have failed getting elected in Tamil Nadu engineered the suit and also his notice for election is not valid in the eye of law. Therefore, they seeks to implead themselves in the suit. 4. The suit is engineered by the 3rd Respondent/2nd Defendant Mr.Vasudevan who have failed getting elected in Tamil Nadu engineered the suit and also his notice for election is not valid in the eye of law. Therefore, they seeks to implead themselves in the suit. 4. Pending these applications, Application No.2640 of 2020 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXIII rule 1 of CPC to withdraw the suit on the ground that the suit has been filed primarily on account of the confusion arising out of parallel election called for by both President and the Secretary General, of the Volleyball Federation of India (VFI), on 15.03.2020 and 12.03.2020 respectively. In the petition it is contended that since the Plaintiff was not clear at the relevant point of time as to which of elections was valid, and since the electoral list for the elections scheduled on 15.03.2020 was apparently wrong, they filed the present suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the Executive committee Meeting was held on 21.02.2020 and it had cancelled the election called for by the President and Executive Committee of Volleyball Federation of India was in accordance with the Constitution and Bye-laws. The election called for by the President held to be invalid by overwhelming majority of members. In view of the above and the decision taken as per law, now the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the suit. The main contesting Defendants have not raised any objection for withdrawal of the suit. Whereas Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal and Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association are objected for withdrawal of the suit and filed their counters. 5. In support of his contention learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied upon the following judgments: 1. R. Dhanasundari @ Rajeswari vs. A.N.Umakanth and others [ 2006 (5) CTC 440 ] 2. Jaya Shankar Singh vs. Champa Devi and others [ 2005 (1) BLJR 323 ] 3. Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh and others [(2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 584] 6. In the counter filed by the Volleyball Association of Uttrakhand it is stated that the suit should not be allowed to be withdrawn for the sole reason that the applicant has filed a counter claim against the plaintiff. Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh and others [(2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 584] 6. In the counter filed by the Volleyball Association of Uttrakhand it is stated that the suit should not be allowed to be withdrawn for the sole reason that the applicant has filed a counter claim against the plaintiff. It is a collusive suit between the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant who have gained substantial order from this Court and after obtaining such orders, are withdrawing the plaint to suit their advantage. It is further submitted that both elections called for by the President as well as the Secretary General of the Volley Ball Federation of India on behalf of VFI on 15.03.2020 and 12.03.2020 respectively per se illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power and blatantly contravenes the National Sports Development Code of India 2011 as well as the Constitution & Bye Loas of the VFI (2014 Edition). The President has submitted before this Court that he has withdrawn the notice for the election on 15.03.2020 and supported the election on 12.03.2020 although the election on 12.03.2020 is contrary to the bye laws. It is also submitted that if the election called by the Secretary General is to be valid, then also the election on 12.03.2020 were not conducted as per the model code of Election as well as the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. No genuine effort was made by the Secretary General to prepare a valid electoral college list in spite of specific direction from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. If this Court is inclined to allow the withdrawal of the plaint then for the reasons stated above and in the interest of volleyball sports, to allow the Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal to trnaspose/implead as Plaintiff in the present suit. As the both elections dated 12.03.2020 and 15.03.2020 were marred by controversies and totally in contravention to the National Sports Development Code of India 2011 as well as Constitution and Bye Laws of the 2nd Respondent, the adjudication by this Court on the issues raised in the plaint is very much imperative for the proper functioning of the Volleyball Federation of India. Hence the withdrawal application may be dismissed. 7. In support of their case, the learned counsel Mr. Manan Varma, learned counsel appearing for the Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal/proposed defendant relied upon the following judgments: 1. Hence the withdrawal application may be dismissed. 7. In support of their case, the learned counsel Mr. Manan Varma, learned counsel appearing for the Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal/proposed defendant relied upon the following judgments: 1. Sm. Ajita Bebi vs. Musst.Hossenara Begum and others, [ AIR 1977 Cal 59 ] 2. Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation [2020(5) CTC 609] 3. Nagoor Gani @ Rajamani and others vs. Gandhi Meenal and others [ 1988(2) MLJ 171 ] 4. Thangavel vs. Kuppana Gounder [2009(6) CTC 800] 8. In the counter filed by the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association it is stated that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking to withdraw the suit C.S.No.113 of 2020 does not contain any truth or correctness. The above application is a clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be rejected in limine. The above application has been filed with absolutely malafide intention for manipulating the affairs of the 1st defendant, according to the Constitution and Byelaws of Volleyball Federation of India Clause VII(b) it is only the President who is empowered to nominate the returning officer for conducting the election for the Volleyball Federation of India. The allegation that the President who called for the election dated 15.3.2020 himself has accepted the decision of the Executive Committee is completely untenable. The second defendant has no authority to decide about subsequent events. After setting in motion the electoral process in accordance with the Constitution and Byelaws of VFI, all the office bearers including the 2nd defendant have become functus-officio. In fact in the electoral process itself and he has no role whatsoever and now he cannot attempt to rotate the wheel backwards. Obviously an effort is being made by defendants 2 & 3 jointly in order to somehow stick on power in VFI after having realized that the results of election dated 15.3.2020 will go against them and therefore the present effort for withdrawing the suit is made. Hence the above application is an abuse of process of law. 9. The allegation that the President who called for the election dated 15.3.2020 himself has accepted the decision of the Executive Committee is completely untenable. The second defendant has no authority to decide about subsequent events. Hence the above application is an abuse of process of law. 9. The allegation that the President who called for the election dated 15.3.2020 himself has accepted the decision of the Executive Committee is completely untenable. The second defendant has no authority to decide about subsequent events. After setting in motion the electoral process in accordance with the Constitution and Byelaws of VFI, all the office bearers including the 2nd defendant have become functus-officio. In fact in the electoral process itself and he has no role whatsoever and now he cannot attempt to rotate the wheel backwards. Obviously an effort is being made by defendants 2 & 3 jointly in order to somehow stick on power in VFI after having realized that the results of election dated 15.3.2020 will go against them and therefore the present effort for withdrawing the suit is made. Hence the above application is an abuse of process of law. The proposed applicant seeks transposition as plaintiff in the above suit so that suitable orders can be obtained for declaration of results of the election dated 15.3.2020 and the interest of sport of volleyball in India as well as the Volleyball Federation of India can be protected. In the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above application with exemplary costs. 10. The suit is originally filed by the Plaintiff for declaration that Electoral College List dated 24.02.2020 and 26.02.2020 issued by Defendants 2 to 5 is ultra virus and also consequential injunction. The suit has been originally filed on the ground that as the President and Secretary of the 1st Defendant association have called for elections on 12.03.2020 and 15.03.2020 respectively. This court by order dated 11.03.2020 restrained the conduct of elections on 12.03.2020 or 15.03.2020 or on any other date. As against which third party has filed appeal before the Division Bench in O.S.A.190 of 2020. The Injunction was suspended and the election was allowed to go on. As against which SLP also filed. This court by order dated 11.03.2020 restrained the conduct of elections on 12.03.2020 or 15.03.2020 or on any other date. As against which third party has filed appeal before the Division Bench in O.S.A.190 of 2020. The Injunction was suspended and the election was allowed to go on. As against which SLP also filed. The Apex Court while declining to interfere the Special Leave Petition passed the following order: "We decline to interfere in the special leave petition as the appeal is still pending before the Division Bench of the High 'Court and the Order in question is only an interim direction permitting the election process to continue, but the results are directed to be presented to the Court in a sealed cover. Therefore, before opening the sealed cover, the High Court may have to consider all aspects of the matter. The parties are free to pursue all contentions available, to be decided by the High Court on its own observations made in the impugned order." 11. It appears that both elections were conducted and only sealed cover relates to election conducted by the President (15.03.2020) alone presented before this Court. No sealed cover relating to election conducted by the Secretary on 12.03.2020 placed before the Court. Be that as it may. It is the main contentions of the impleading applicants that now the plaintiff cannot withdraw the suit since the very call for Electoral College List was questioned by them. Therefore, the suit cannot be permitted to be withdrawn. Whereas the counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that as the election called for by the Secretary was accepted by the majority members and the same was done by as per the constitution and bye-laws. The plaintiff has now withdrawing the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, in which case the defendants are impleading parties have no right to object it. 12. I have perused the entire materials. As narrated factually above, the suit has been filed for declaration declaring the election notices issued by the President and Secretary on two different dates to be ultra-virus. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff that as the Executive committee has passed resolution holding that election called for by the President is not valid. Only the election authorised by the Execution Committee and called for by the Secretary has approved. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff that as the Executive committee has passed resolution holding that election called for by the President is not valid. Only the election authorised by the Execution Committee and called for by the Secretary has approved. The Plaintiff being the member of the 1st Defendant seeks to withdraw the suit. Though the matter went up to the Apex Court the entire issue revolving around the preparation of the Electoral College and conduct of the elections. Now, elections were conducted and besides the president who have called for the election filed affidavit to the effect that he is bound by the Executive Committee resolution. The very affidavit indicate that his letter for calling election is not valid as per bye-law. Now, the Plaintiff being the member of the 1st Defendant seeks to withdraw the suit on the ground that he is also bound by the Executive Committee resolutions. 13. Now, the contention of the impleading parties is that the suit cannot be withdrawn since substantial right has been accrued. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association Mr. Thankasivan submitted that as the plaintiff is not interested in contesting the suit he has to transpose the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association to contest and continue the suit as plaintiff. 14(1). In Sm. Ajita Bebi vs. Musst.Hossenara Begum and others [ AIR 1977 Cal 59 ] it is held as follows: "12. In our view, where an application has been made under Order XXIII, Rule 1 the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw his suit and the defendants cannot be heard to oppose such prayer. But the said legal right of the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit is not unconditional or absolute. The Court can only exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiffs where the interests of the defendants are not adversely affected in any way if the plaintiffs are allowed to withdraw the suit. To Illustrate, in a partition suit by a sole plaintiff against defendants, the former cannot be allowed to withdraw the suit inasmuch as a defendant having a cause of action against such plaintiff, may be allowed to be transposed as plaintiff in the suit. Reliance may be Placed on Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeshwar Prosad, 56 Ind App 228 at p. 229 = ( AIR 1931 PC 162 ). Reliance may be Placed on Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeshwar Prosad, 56 Ind App 228 at p. 229 = ( AIR 1931 PC 162 ). The Judicial Committee in this case held that transposition of a party under Order 1, Rule 10 should be allowed where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, in a suit under Section 62 of the Code a plaintiff is not allowed to withdraw the suit if one of the defendants makes en application to proceed with the suit after being transposed as a plaintiff. Reliance may be placed upon AIR 1920 Mad 732. Similar situation may arise in a suit for accounts of a firm by a Partner. We are, therefore, satisfied that where an application simpliciter has been made under Order XXIII, Rule 1, the Court cannot compel the plaintiff to proceed with the suit and the defendants cannot be allowed to complain against such order. But where there is an affinity or identity of interests between the plaintiffs and one or more of the defendants, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to withdraw the suit if an application on behalf of such defendants having an interest in the suit is made for their transposition to the category of plaintiffs and for transposition of the plaintiffs to the category of the defendants under Order 1, Rule 10." 14(2). In Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation [2020(5) CTC 609] this court has held as follows: "22. On the said issue, we find that the learned Single Judge in order to draw a curtain on the litigation at that stage had already been offered an opportunity to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. In our view, once such a request has been made, and unless there are any unrepresented third party rights that may be affected, or any of the contingencies mentioned in the judgments referred to herein above exist, it is always ordinarily an acceptable position that the Court should not proceed to adjudicate the matter and permit withdrawal on such conditions that may be necessary." 14(3). In Nagoor Gani @ Rajamani and others vs. Gandhi Meenal and others [ 1988(2) MLJ 171 ] "12. In Nagoor Gani @ Rajamani and others vs. Gandhi Meenal and others [ 1988(2) MLJ 171 ] "12. Insofar as the right of the defendants 19 and 20 to transpose themselves as plaintiffs is concerned, I have already extracted the provision of Order 23, Rule 1-A C.P.C. This new rule has been enacted in order to enable a defendant, who has identical interest, from being denied his interest if he rested on the success of the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit. Before a defendant could invoke this provision, it must be shown that the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or abandon his claim under Rule 1 of Order 23, C.P.C. It is a condition precedent to enable a defendant to get himself transposed. The principle that follows this rule is that there must be identity of interest between the plaintiff and such a defendant who wants to transpose as a plaintiff. It must be a suit where the defendant is entitled to succeed automatically on the success of the plaintiff in the suit. Such a defendant is usually called as a proforma defendant. To put it in other words, both the parties are projecting the same claim against the other defendants, and, therefore, the success of one is the success of the other. In such cases, the law comes to the rescue of such a defendant so that the plaintiff, who is having a similar right, cannot defeat the rights of the defendant by colluding with the other contesting defendants. Though Courts lean against multiplicity of suits, they would not permit sch transposition just to give a chance to a litigant to avoid filing a suit or permit him to take advantage of the suit filed by his adversary against him by becoming a plaintiff and trying to bring out the averments and reliefs which are contrary to those claimed by the original plaintiff." 14(4) In Thangavel vs. Kuppana Gounder [2009(6) CTC 800] this court has held that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which requires the Court to refuse the permission to withdraw a suit or to compel a plaintiff to proceed with his suit unless the same vested right of a third party has come into existence at the stage when the plaintiff seeks to withdraw his suit. (Hulas Raj (M/s) .v. K.B.Bass (1968 S.C.111). (Hulas Raj (M/s) .v. K.B.Bass (1968 S.C.111). This is so because of withdrawal of the suit under Sub Rule(1) is complete as soon as takes place and in case, the Court is informed of it. That being so, there is no question of right to revoke the said withdrawal. Each and every case will have to be examined on a giving set off facts to determine where any right has accrued to the defendant and a suit cannot be withdrawn under O.23 R.1 of CPC( even where no permission sought for filing a fresh suit), if such right has accrued to the defendant at the time when the withdrawal is so sought. When an application for withdrawal of the suit is made with a permission to file a fresh suit and that application is dismissed, there is a bar to file another such application on the same cause of ground as per the decision reported in Krishnakumar-v- J.B.Bham (AIR 1971 Cal.322) and where any right has accrued to the defendant the facts of the case will have to be considered and examination in depth as per the decision reported in Mulshankar Narveram Ojha-v- Union of India (AIR 1985 NOC 152(Ori). 14(5). The above judgments shows that the court can exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff where the interests of the defendants are not adversely affected in any way if the plaintiffs are allowed to withdraw the suit. Whereas the application has been filed by the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally. Therefore, the above judgments are not applicable facts of the present case. The defendants or proposed parties have not even challenged the elections by independent suit nor filing counter claim. They only sought themselves to implead as a party. 15. It is to be noted that when the Plaintiff withdraws or abandons the suit the defendant cannot seek transposition as matter of right. Only if he has substantial question to be decided as against other defendants in terms of second limb of Order 23, Rule 1-A, he can be transposed as plaintiff. Before such transposition he must establish that he has a substantial position to be decided. In this regard, judgment of this Court in R. Dhanasundari @ R.Rajeswari vs. A.N.Umakanth and others [ 2006(5) CTC 440 ] it is held as follows: "14. Before such transposition he must establish that he has a substantial position to be decided. In this regard, judgment of this Court in R. Dhanasundari @ R.Rajeswari vs. A.N.Umakanth and others [ 2006(5) CTC 440 ] it is held as follows: "14. From a perusal of the Rule and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following tests appear to hold the field, in deciding the right of a defendant to transpose himself as a plaintiff: (a) Whether the defendant who seeks transposition has substantial question to be decided? (b) Whether such substantial question has to be decided against any of the other defendants? (c) Whether the defendant seeking transposition has an identity of interest along with the plaintiff as against other defendants? (d) Whether the success of the plaintiff would result in the automatic success of the defendant who seeks transposition? (e) Whether the withdrawal or abandonment by the plaintiff, of the suit, results in some vested right of the defendant getting defeated? The above tests are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 16. On perusal of the affidavit filed for impleading the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association makes it clear that they filed the application seeking impleadment only on the ground that the election called for by the President is objected by the Plaintiff association. Now, it appears that the notice calling for the election issued by the President namely the 2nd Defendant in the suit itself has not been accepted by the majority of the members in executive committee and which has passed the resolution holding that only notice issued by the Secretary is valid. In such view of the matter there is no substantial right to be decided in favour of the Tamil Nadu State Volleyball Association. Accordingly, it cannot be transposed as Plaintiff. 17. As far as the other impleading party namely, Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal is concerned, they have also questioned the parallel election for same association, called for by the President and Secretary, the main grievance appears to be with regard to two members viz., Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Mitun Jain, shown as the members of the Uttrakhand. It is their grievance that those two members are not members of the Volleyball Association of Uttranchal nor member of any affiliate unit from the State of Uttrakhand. Mitun Jain, shown as the members of the Uttrakhand. It is their grievance that those two members are not members of the Volleyball Association of Uttranchal nor member of any affiliate unit from the State of Uttrakhand. Their grievance is only against the two members, who have said to be the members from Uttranchal. It is also stated in the affidavit that W.P.No.3790 of 2019 filed before the Uttrakhand High Court is also pending. Similarly, Electoral College also published after considering the orders passed by the writ court in W.P.No.538 of 2020 was also considered by the Returning Officer and release the Electoral College. Therefore, if the only grievance of the Uttranchal Volleyball Association is against inducting some other members as members of the Volleyball Association of Uttaranchal, it is for them to agitate the same in a separate suit or proceedings and not in this suit. Merely because Apex Court has directed, the court to take all objections before opening the sealed cover, this Court is of the view that as the Executive Committee has passed a resolution and they decided to accept the election notice issued by the Secretary election conducted by the Returning Officer viz., 5th Defendant to be declared as a valid election. If at all any grievance as against election, it is for the defendants/impleading parties to take appropriate action for filing separate suit, not in this suit. This suit has been filed for declaration for elections and the suit is now sought to be withdrawn unconditionally by the Plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC. 18. In Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh [(2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 584] the Apex Court has held that when plaintiff files an application under Order 23 Rule 1 and prays for permission to withdraw the suit, whether in full or part, he is always at liberty to do so and in such case, the defendant has no right to raise any objection to such prayer being made by the plaintiff except to ask for payment of the cost to him by the plaintiff as provided in sub-rule (4). The reason is that while making a prayer to withdraw the suit under Rule 1(1), the plaintiff does not ask for any leave to file a fresh suit on the same subject-matter. The reason is that while making a prayer to withdraw the suit under Rule 1(1), the plaintiff does not ask for any leave to file a fresh suit on the same subject-matter. A mere withdrawal of the suit without asking for anything more can, therefore, be always permitted. 19. In Jaya Shankar Singh vs. Champa Devi and others [ 2005(1) BLJR 323 ] the High Court of Patna in para 9 has held as follows: "9. Furthermore, the plaintiff had an unqualified right to withdraw a suit simplicitor as per the provision of Order XXIII, Rule 1, Sub-rule 1 of the CPC which contains no provision which requires the Court to refuse permission to withdraw the suit and compel the plaintiffs to proceed with it, specially when no set- off has been claimed by the defendants nor any counter claim has been raised by them." 20. Having regard to the above judgments, particularly, no counter claim or substantial right pleaded for decision by the defendant and no right accrued to them and the Plaintiff seeks to withdraw the suit unconditionally, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiff is certainly entitled to withdraw the suit. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. However, taking note of the time spent in the Court and valuable time consumed in this matter by the Courts for passing interim orders and matters carried away to the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that as a matter of right the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to withdraw without any terms. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by electronically transferring the amount, as cost, to the credit of the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from today. The bank details are as follows : BANK DETAILS FOR NEFT Name of Beneficiary Cancer Institute (WIA) Email id : finance@cancerinstitutewia.org Phone 044-24437302 , 9445026152 Bank Name and Branch Andhra Bank MadyaKailash Branch Cancer Institute (WIA) DrKrishnamurthi Complex Sardar Patel Road, Chennai 600036 Savings Bank Account No 149710011005477 IFSC Code ANDB0001497 Bank MICR No. 600011049 21. In the result, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Original Application and Applications are closed. Post on 30.11.2020 for compliance.