Gujarat High Court
Kantilal Ambalal Patel Thro Poa ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 13/04/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2026
(FOR WITHDRAWAL OF MATTER)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7670 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2013
(FOR JOINING PARTY)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7670 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
(FOR JOINING PARTY)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7670 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018
(FOR JOINING PARTY)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7670 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2026
(FOR WITHDRAWAL OF MATTER)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7671 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
(FOR JOINING PARTY)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7671 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018
(FOR JOINING PARTY)
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7671 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
Page 1 of 46
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
=======================================================
LEGAL HEIR OF KANTILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR ADITYA A
GUPTA(7875) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR KURVEN K
DESAI(7786) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR KARAN G PATEL(10145) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Appearance:
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO.1 OF 2018 IN
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7670 OF 2013
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS VENU H
NANAVATY for the Applicant(s) No.1
MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR for the Respondent(s) No.1
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA for the Respondent(s) No.6
MR TARAK DAMANI for the Respondent (s) No. 5
Appearance:
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO.1 OF 2018 IN
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7671 OF 2013
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS VENU H
NANAVATY for the Applicant(s) No.1
MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR for the Respondent(s) No.1
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TARAK DAMANI for the Respondent (s) No. 5 -8
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 06/05/2026
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waive service of notice of rule.
2. By way of filing present applications, the applicants have prayed for permission to withdraw Page 2 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined main writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.7670 & 7671 of 2013 unconditionally.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Aditya Gupta with learned advocate, Mr. Harshal Boradiya for applicant of CA No.1/2026 in SCA No.7670/2013 & CA No.1/2026 in SCA No.7671/2013, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.N. Soparkar assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Kurven Desai for the respondent no.5 of CA No.1/2026 in SCA No.7670/2013 & CA No.1/2026 in SCA No.7671/2013, learned advocate, Mr. B.S. Patel assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Umang Oza for learned advocate, Mr. Chirag Patel for the respondent no.9 of CA No.1/2026 in SCA No.7671/2013 and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by learned advocate, Ms. Venu Nanavaty for learned advocate, Mr. S.A. Chhabaria for the applicant of CA Nos.1 & 2 of 2018 in SCA Nos.7670 & 7671 of 2013.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Shalin Mehta submitted that the present matter has a chequired history having several litigation from the revenue authorities reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore before making submissions on merits, certain sequence of incident of events are required to be considered, which are as under, 4.1 One Shri Kantilal Ambalal Patel being Administrator of Kantilal Ambalal Patel HUF had filed one Special Civil Suit No.149/2005 Page 3 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined against 5 - Gayatrinagar Cooperative Society before the court of learned Civil Judge, Vadodara on 30.03.2005, wherein amicable settlement had taken place between the parties and based upon the said compromise arrived at between the parties, a consent decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vadodara on 30.04.2005 in favour of Kantilal Ambalal Patel HUF and on the basis of the said consent decree, five different registered sale deeds came to be executed on 22.11.2010 in favour of Kantilal Ambalal Patel HUF and on the basis of said registered sale deed, necessary entries came to be mutated in the revenue record.
4.2 However subsequently, some of the members of the Gayatrinagar Cooperative Societies had challenged the aforesaid consent decree before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing First Appeal Nos.1827 & 1828 of 2021, however pending said first appeals, the said Kantilal Ambalal Patel passed away, therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record. 4.3 However pending above first appeals, certain applications were preferred by the third party to join them as party respondents contending inter alia that they are the necessary and proper party, therefore at the time of deciding the said first appeal, their presence is required, however, those Page 4 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined applications have been rejected.
4.4 Thereafter pending aforesaid first appeals, amicable settlement had arrived at between the parties and accordingly, a request was made before the Division Bench of this Court for withdrawal of Special Civil Suit No.149/2005 unconditionally by giving up, waiving and abandoning all claims made in the suit and after considering the said request, the said First Appeals had been allowed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 22.09.2022 with a specific direction to permit the legal heirs of the original plaintiff to withdraw the main proceedings and thereby the decree passed by the learned Civil Court has been quashed and set aside and the original plaintiffs were permitted to withdrawn the proceedings. 4.5 Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the third party had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6769-6770 of 2023 & Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.6774-6775 of 2023, however, the said SLP came to be dismissed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 03.02.2026.
4.6 In short, the proceedings initiated at the instance of Kantilal Ambalal Patel HUF had been permitted to withdraw the main suit Page 5 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined proceedings and the possession of the land in question is restored to earlier stage i.e. in the name of 5 - Gayatrinagar Society.
5. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mehta submitted that in fact, pursuant to the registered sale deed, certain entries were mutated in the revenue record and members of the society were aggrieved by the said entry, therefore, they had made representation to the Collector, pursuant to which, RTS proceedings have been initiated and ultimately, those entries have been declared as cancelled, therefore, the said order cancelling the entries was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing present petition, wherein the order of the Collector has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court. He submitted that pending present petition, amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, therefore, the petitioners herein have decided to withdrawn the present proceedings unconditionally instituted by their father.
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mehta submitted that it is well established principle of law that the revenue entries are required to be maintained by giving effect to the civil rights of the parties. He submitted that the impugned order of the Collector is based upon the execution of the registered sale deed, that too, based upon the consent decree passed by the competent civil court and the said suit instituted by the father of the Page 6 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined petitioners had already been withdrawn with all consequential effect, therefore, automatically by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, effect of the execution of the registered sale deed are declared as quashed and set aside and the effect of the said deed would become redundant, therefore, the entry mutated in the revenue record based upon the execution of the said registered sale deed would automatically treated as cancelled and, therefore, the present applications are filed with a prayer that they may be permitted to withdraw the proceedings instituted by them challenging the impugned order passed by the Collector. He submitted that if the application is preferred to withdraw the proceedings unconditionally, in that event, automatically the said application is required to be considered in certain eventuality. He, however, submitted that the said application cannot be considered on the ground that (1) if the Hon'ble Court finds that upon giving permission to withdrawn the proceedings unconditionally, it would create fraud upon the rights of third party; (2) it would cause any prejudice to third party; (3) if they are found guilty in overreaching the proceedings; and (4) if granting permission would become contrary to the decision rendered by the Division Bench i.e. not in consonance with the order of the Division Bench. He submitted that considering the above grounds coupled with the Page 7 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined aforesaid factual aspects as stated above itself goes on to show that civil rights of the parties have already been crystallized by the competent civil court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, civil rights have already been attained finality. He, therefore, submitted that considering above factual aspects of the matter, these applications may be considered and the applicants may be permitted to withdraw the present proceedings.
7. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Soparkar submitted that his client is also sailing on the same boat, therefore, he is adopting the arguments canvassed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Shalin Mehta for the applicants. He submitted that the proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the original petitioners cannot be objected by third party and it is obviously prerogative of the Hon'ble Court to permit the person concerned to withdraw the proceedings unconditionally. He submitted that in the revenue proceedings, revenue entries are mutated in the record with a sole intent to collect taxes and generally used for the fiscal purpose. He submitted that by mutating the name of the parties in the revenue record, it would not decide any civil rights of the parties when conveyance deed executed by the petitioner itself is quashed and set aside, therefore, based upon the execution of the said deed, if any entry was mutated in the revenue record, it would Page 8 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined automatically require to be declared as cancelled and in absence of execution of the registered deed, the cause involved in the matter has become in fructuous, therefore without there being any cause available, keeping the parties in continuous in litigation would amount to abuse of the process of law. He submitted that in fact in earlier round of litigation, wherein First Appeals had been preferred by Gayatrinagar Cooperative Society against the petitioner, wherein third party objector had filed an application for joining him as party respondent specifically contending that based upon the execution of the registered sale deed, certain further transactions have been carried out by the father of the petitioners by way of executing agreement to sale after receiving huge volume of amount, therefore, they are necessary and proper party and their civil rights are interconnected and interlinked with the outcome of the proceedings of First Appeals, therefore, they may be heard. He submitted that however despite pointing out all above facts, the said civil application had been rejected by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by detailed order and the said order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP preferred by the third party, therefore, their rights have already been crystallized. He further submitted that at the time of filing SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, third party has raised all available Page 9 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined contentions in the said SLP, copy of memo of SLP is produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that once having contended all contention, it is not open for third party to raise all those contentions again and again in all proceedings despite having no locus. He further submitted that in view of the numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court, it is settled proposition of law that every applicant has right to withdraw the proceeding unconditionally and third party, whose rights have already been decided and considered, has no right to raise dispute about the unconditional withdrawal of the proceedings instituted at the instance of the father of the petitioners.
8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mehta, at this stage, has taken this Court towards the observations made by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court while passing Judgment dated 22.09.2022 in First Appeal No.1827/2021 and allied matter and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the said observations, in that event, it is evident that the Division Bench has crystallized the rights of third party, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, submitted that considering the said observations, here in the present case, third party has no locus to stand. He, therefore, submitted that the present applications may be allowed as prayed for.
9. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Soparkar, at this Page 10 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined stage, has referred to and relied upon the Judgment dated 17.12.2019 delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Civil Application No.1/2019 in Special Civil Application No.3409/2007 with Civil Application No.1/2019 in Special Civil Application No.3410/2007 in case of Manoramya Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tinaben Behram Mehta and emphasized the observations made therein. He submitted that as per the said decision, every applicant has a right to unconditionally withdrawn his application and no order of Hon'ble Court is necessary permitting him to withdraw the application and in fact, the Hon'ble Court may take a formal order disposing of the application as withdrawn.
10. Learned advocate, Mr. B.S. Patel has submitted that in fact, all the arguments have already been canvassed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Soparkar, therefore just to avoid repetition, he is not making submissions in detailed. He, however, submitted that in fact, third party has no locus in the present proceedings instituted by the original petitioners in view of the fact that their rights have already been crystallized by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it seems that with malafide intention, the aforesaid applications for joining them as party respondents have been preferred, which may not be entertained.
11. Learned advocate, Mr. Patel has referred to and Page 11 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined relied upon following decisions, (1) the judgment in case of Narharibhai Chaturbhai Patel & Ors. Vs. Ashish Mukundlal Shah & Ors., reported in 2022 (4) GLR 2514;
(2) the judgment in case of Patel Dineshbhai Mohanbhai Vs. Naranbhai Ramdas, reported in 2005 (1) GLR 116;
12. Referring to the aforesaid decisions of this Hon'ble Court, learned advocate, Mr. Patel submitted that in case of settlement between the original plaintiff and the defendant, if the original plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit unconditionally, the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to refuse such unconditional withdrawal unless there is any counter-claim or set-off claimed by the defendat in the said suit.
13. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Anshin Desai appearing for the third party has objected to the grant of relief as prayed for in the present applications with a vehemence and submitted that the father of the petitioners had instituted civil suit, wherein compromise had been arrived at between the parties and consent decree was passed by the Court and on the basis of the said decree, five different sale deeds have been executed between the parties and pursuant to which, entries were mutated in the revenue record and those proceedings have been carried before the revenue authority in the year 2005 and based upon execution of the document, the Page 12 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined name of the father of the petitioners came to be mutated in the revenue record and thereby an impression is created that they are the absolute owner and occupiers of the said land on the strength of the execution of the registered sale deed, therefore, the petitioners contacted the respondent no.2 and ultimately, entered into transaction with the respondent no.3. He submitted that huge volume of amount of Rs.7.50 crores have been given to all the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Kantilal Ambalal Patel through cheques and documents to that effect have been placed on record and they have also issued receipts about the same and thus, after pocketing huge volume of amount from the respondent no.3, the petitioners herein have entered into deed of settlement with the original members of the Gayatrinagar Society and then after, tried to withdraw the original proceedings instituted at the instance of their father and as soon as the respondent no.3 had come to know about the said fact, they have immediately filed civil application to join them as party respondents as they are proper and necessary party. He submitted that in fact, based upon the execution of the agreement to sale and non-fulfillment of the conditions of the deed, they have filed suit for specific performance before the competent court despite the fact that all the proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the concerned Page 13 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined respondent, they have tried to jeopardize the civil rights of the parties by way of filing application to withdraw the proceedings unconditionally instituted before the competent civil court by the father of the petitioners. He submitted submitted that in fact, the members of the Society had already filed an application to join them as party in the civil proceedings instituted at their instance, the said application had not been entertained.
14. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Desai submitted that 5
- Gayatrinagar Society had filed five different suits before the court of learned Civil Judge, Vadodara, wherein the applicant herein had preferred an application for joining him as party respondent, however surprisingly, the said application came to be dismissed, against which, writ petitions were preferred before this Hon'ble Court challenging the said order, however, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court had rejected the said writ petition and being aggrieved by the said order, SLP was preferred, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, however, submitted that in fact, at the time of deciding the aforesaid writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has given detailed reason that how the applicant is affected by the outcome of the proceedings and they are to be considered as necessary and proper party. He further submitted that if the petitioners are Page 14 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined permitted to be withdrawn the present proceedings as prayed for, in that event, rights of the parties would be clearly affected and they are proper and necessary parties in the proceedings and the said application preferred by him for joining him as party respondent is still pending, which ultimately jeopardize their civil rights, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, therefore, the present applications are required to be rejected.
15. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Desai has referred to and relied upon following decisions, (1) the judgment in case of R. Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Murugesan & Ors., reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25;
(2) the judgment in case of R. Danasundari @ R. Rajeshwari Vs. A.N. Umakanth & Ors., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 1;
(3) the judgment in case of Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubhai Jadeja Vs. Jayeshkumar Chakkaddas Shah & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 533;
(4) the judgment in case of R. Suzuki
Parasrampura Suitings Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Official Liquidator of Mahendra
Petrochemicals Ltd. & Ors., reported in
(2018) 10 SCC 707;
(5) the judgment in case of Avenue Supermarts
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nischint Bhalla & Ors.,
reported in (2016) 15 SCC 411;
(6) the judgment in case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. V.
Page 15 of 46
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 230;
(7) the judgment in case of Amar Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69;
(8) the judgment in case of R. Joint Action Comittee of Air Line Pilots Association of India (Alpai) & Ors. Vs. Director, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435;
(9) the judgment in case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Golden Chariot Airport & Anr., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 422;
(10) the judgment in case of R. Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 753; (11) the judgment in case of Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Krishna Bansal & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 162;
(12) the judgment in case of Sneh Gupta Vs. V. Devi Sarup & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 194;
(13) the judgment in case of R. Rathinavel Chettiar Vs. V. Sivaraman & Ors., reported in (1999) 4 SCC 89;
(14) the judgment in case of Babu Ram @ Durga Prasad VS. Indra Pal Singh, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 358;
(15) the judgment dated 28.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Page 16 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Application No.18816/2017 and allied matters;
16. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Desai submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court, position has been crystallized that conduct of the petitioner about the approbate and reprobate condition is required to be seen at the time of passing order. He, therefore, urged that the present applications seeking withdrawal of the main writ petitions may not be entertained and it may be rejected.
17. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and having considered the facts of the case coupled with the material and evidence available on record, the moot question, which has arisen for consideration of this Court, is as to whether the Court can permit the applicants to withdraw the main writ petitions preferred by them in view of the controversy involved in the matter and as to whether the third party, who is sought to be impleaded as party respondent and whose rights have already been crystallized by the Hon'ble Court, can be allowed to join in the proceedings.
18. Having considered the facts of the case, as stated above, it appears that the father of the petitioners viz., Kantilal Ambalal Patel entered into sale transaction for the land bearing Survey Nos.320, 320/1, 329 & 332 situated in Village :
Page 17 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Pipadiya, Taluka : Waghodiya, District : Vadodara by way of executing agreement to sale and at that point of time, entire sale consideration was paid to the land owners, however as there was no response from the land owner, Kantilal Ambalal Patel being Administrator of Kantilal Ambalal Patel HUF had filed Special Civil Suit No.149/2005 before the court of learned Civil Judge, Vadodara inter alia praying for specific performance against 5 - Gaytrinagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., wherein amicable settlement had taken place and on the basis of it, consent decree came to be passed in the aforesaid suit on 30.03.2005 and on the basis of the said consent decree, five different sale deeds came to be executed in favour of the father of the petitioners viz., Kantilal Ambalal Patel on 22.10.2010, however subsequently, some members of the said Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society had challenged the aforesaid consent decree before this Hon'ble Court by filing First Appeal Nos.1827 & 1828 of 2021, wherein also amicable settlement had taken place and on the basis of same, the said first appeals came to be disposed of. It is required to be noted that in connection with the aforesaid sale transactions, FIR has been registered and the said criminal proceedings are pending for its adjudication. Thereafter, the aforesaid entries mutated in favour of Kantilal Ambalal Patel have been taken into suo motu by the Page 18 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined revenue authorities and, thereafter, same were cancelled, therefore against the cancellation of those entries, the present petitions have been preferred challenging those orders.
19. In the aforesaid writ petitions, third party has prayed for impleadment on the ground that if any order is passed in their absence, in that event, their rights would be adversely affected. It is required to be noted that third party had preferred an application for impleading them as party respondents in the first appeals preferred by 5 - Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society, which was rejected by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by detailed order, against which, SLP was preferred, which was also dismissed. It is required to be noted that while rejecting the application by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the rights of the third party have been crystallized. Relevant observations made by the Division Bench are as under, "30. So far as applicant of 6/2018 is concerned, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that Mr. Kalpesh sell which is in breach of the status quo order. It is the statutory right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, the order of status quo in Appeal from Order cannot take away such prerogative right of the plaintiff merely apprehending the sale deeds would be nullified. Again, this court would ensure the parties to be availed their remedies in their respective legal pursuits.
31. The essential arguments on the part of the third party is that permitting this withdrawal would amount to the sale deeds being gone and the suit of Mr. Kalpesh Patel seeking enforcement of the agreement would be rendered redundant and thus the withdrawal is an abuse of process to Page 19 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined destroy the rights of the others.
32 There appears prima facie no transfer of interest in favour of Mr. Kalpesh Patel and Ms. Dolly Patel is herself disputing the alleged agreement executed with him. Even if, she is not permitted to question the same, the probable adverse fate of a suit instituted by third party should not be a relevant factor for permitting plaintiff an unconditional right to withdraw the suit. It is not the dishonest attempt on the part of the father of Ms. Dolly Patel- Kantilal Patel, which needs to be overemphasized at this stage, but the Court needs to essentially regard the right of the members of the societies, who were kept in complete dark at the time when the societies were represented by the accountant of Mr. Kantilal Patel himself. Even without entering in all these details, the Court can notice the fact that the District Registrar' s permission, which was a must for any sale of the properties of the societies was not only missing, but the same was concocted. Later on, criminal proceedings in that relation have already culminated into the filing of the charge-sheet and supplementary charge- sheet. The quashing petitions against these FIRs also have not yielded any fruits in favour of the plaintiff and his legal heirs. These are glaring indications decreeing of the Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2005 on 30. 04. 2005 within one month of its filing by way of a consent decree when questioned and challenged seriously by way of an appeal, initially by eight members by way of First Appeal No. 1827 of 2021 and thereafter by 65 others by way of First Appeal No. 1828 of 2021 seeking to quash and set aside the compromise decree passed by the learned 9th Joint Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2005 pursuant to the compromise entered into by respondent No. 1 Mr. Kantilal Ambalal Patel on one hand and rest of the respondents on other hands namely Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society (Balasinor group,Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society ( Parla group) , Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society ( Valkeshwar group) , Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society (Khetivadi group) and Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society ( Alkapuri group) respectively respondent Nos. 2 to 5. It has been challenged on the ground that it is fraud upon the appellants for the same having been entered only with a view to frustrate Page 20 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the rights of the appellants and the other plot holders, who are the members of the respondent- societies.
33. This background shall need to be borne in mind that Ms. Dolly Patel now in wake of death of Kantilal Patel when is seeking to withdraw the original suit itself and these are not the appeals arising from the matters of third parties who are before this Court questioning and challenging the very suit. They were never parties to the suit and this peculiar background of questioning and challenging the consent decree will need to be borne in mind by this Court. There is no party which can be permitted to go before the trial Court to question and withdraw the suit itself, it is for this Court to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and as mentioned hereiabove and is well established. The appeal being a continuation of the same, the heirs of original plaintiff if realises the mistake or if choosen to withdraw, it can always set it right and seek the withdrawal.
34. If in the process, Ms. Dolly Patel is allegedly attempting to defraud the third parties, whose interest averred to have been created, they have legal recourse available to pursue. Nobody can be permitted to raise its claim on a shaky foundation and here it is quite apparent from the numbers of documents, chronological events and the consequential steps taken by the plaintiff to come to the conclusion that the challenge to the so called consent decree on the part of the societies is a genuine contest, there is no reason for them to approach this Court as an appellant if, they had no lis against the respondents-original plaintiffs. The misdeeds of selling the entire societal land without the permission of the District Registrar is staring in the face of the respondents-original plaintiffs and have been further vindicated by way of the criminal proceedings which have resulted into the charge-sheets and supplementary charge-sheet. Every challenge to these FIRs has failed right up to the Apex Court and this also further establishes the claim of the appellants, who have every right to question and challenge this consent decree.
35. Even while recognizing the right of the third parties to pursue the respective remedies against Page 21 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the original plaintiffs-Mr. Kantilal Patel and his heirs and even without entering into any kind of allegations of these third parties having approached this Court belatedly or their having entered into these litigations surreptitiously with total comprehension and contrary to the public policy, they can be permitted to establish their independent rights before the respective Courts in their civil litigations which they may establish at future date. However, for them to sustain such litigation, decree which has been based on ex facie fraudulent act on the part of the respondent cannot be permitted to be further continued. Their own suit also require such decree to be set aside and therefore, this withdrawal may support their rights in consequence.
36. Resultantly, while permitting the third parties not to be impleaded as the parties in these appeals, the withdrawal is permitted of the original suits consequently allowing both these appeals. They though were not the parties to the proceedings and their applications for impleadment are decided simultaneously, they are already availed opportunities to address this Court on merit of the matter and as mentioned above, when they are already having their independent rights to pursue the remedy, their impleadment may not be necessary.
37. The Apex Court in case of Malluru Mallappa (supra) held that the appellate proceedings being the continuity of the suit, the request on the part of the only surviving heir of Mr. Kantilal Patel seeking to quash and set aside the decree passed on 30. 04. 2005 in Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2005 under Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be surely accepted. As mentioned hereinabove, the plaintiff is a dominus litis, the parties which are claiming to have their respective rights are all independently pursuing their rights based on the respective agreement from the year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2018. Their applications for interim injunction are also pending. The injunction applications moved by the society in their suits of the year 2013 also are directed to be once again heard in wake of impleadment of M/s. Jalaram Developers and Mr. Talati as the party defendants.
Page 22 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
38. It is also noteworthy that the societies in all its five suits have called for quashing and setting aside the compromise decree on the basis of the same being fraudulent. It is also not surprising that such allegations are made as the only person, who represented the society was the accountant, who was an accountant of Mr. Kantilal Patel. The society was in complete dark and therefore, it is litigating with Mr. Kantilal Patel and his heir from the year 2013. From the amount of consideration which is said to have gone to the society, not a single penny has come to its account. Moreover, the fraudulent permission of the Registrar of the Societies was concocted by Mr. Kantilal Patel for which not only he, but his family members are till date facing the criminal prosecution. The rights of M/s. Jalaram Developers and Mr. Talati as also of Mr. Kalpesh Patel are to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings and it is not for this Court to evaluate the merits of those claims in the present proceedings. Their objection to this withdrawal is also quite intriguing when they are fully aware of the serious allegations against Mr. Kantilal Patel and one of them Mr. Divyang Jha also in his suit had sought to question the collusive decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2005. Moreover, the objection on the ground that the order of status quo qua in the suit property is directed to be maintained by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18816 of 2017 with allied matters with a further direction that no party should change the nature of the suit properties till the trial Court decides the referred injunction applications, which also would not mean that there can be any fetter on the parties to exercise its statutory rights to withdraw the proceedings.
39. We must also take note of the fact that all parties were before the Apex Court when this declaration was made by the heir of the original plaintiff Ms. Dolly Patel through her counsel that she is giving up all her rights and the decree passed in favour of Mr. Kantilal Patel, is also sought to be quashed and set aside as a consequence when the Apex Court permitted all the parties concerned to work out their rights in the different proceedings which are still pending. It is for them to agitate their rights in respective matters and this contention of maintenance of Page 23 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined status quo in relation to the nature of the suit property surely can be agitated in their respective suit. The withdrawal of the suit does not change the nature of the suit property.
39.1 At the same time, we are in agreement with learned senior advocate, Mr. Anshin Desai that doctrine of merger would not apply as urged by the learned senior advocate, Mr. Oza as nothing has been looked into by the Apex Court. The Court choose not to accept any plea of merger for the reason that the Apex Court has simply recorded the statement of learned senior advocate, Mr. Oza on behalf of his clients and permitted the petitioners to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions, as the sequitur thereto. And, the Apex Court had left the parties to work out their rights in the respective different proceedings, which are pending, the theory of doctrine of merger surely would not come into picture. The serious allegation is made of the societies having collusive relation with the heir of deceased Mr. Kantilal Patel and one Mr. Divyang Jha in the name of the society is sponsoring the litigation. All these aspects are also open to be agitated before the concerned Court. This Court would choose not to go into the same. These being the appeals and it is the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, the request on the part of Mr. Talati, M/s. Jalaram Developer and Mr. Kalpesh Patel to be impleaded as the parties in these appeals has come for the first time after it was declared by the original plaintiff through her learned Counsel before the Apex Court. Thus, M/s. Jalram Developers and Mr. Talati have approached this Court for impleadment in a suit for a gap of more than seven to ten years.
39.2 The Apex Court in case of H. S. Goutham (supra) in para 41 has held thus:
"41. Now, so far as the objection raised on behalf of the appellant herein that the appeal before the High Court against a consent decree was not maintainable is concerned, the same has no substance. The High Court has elaborately dealt with the same in detail and has considered the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, Section 96, Order XXIII Rule 3, Order XLIII Rule 1 (m) and order XLIII Rule 1A(2). It is true that, as per Page 24 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Section 96(3), the appeal against the decree passed with the consent of the parties shall be barred. However, it is also true that as per Order XXIII Rule 3A no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. However, it is required to be noted that when Order XLIII Rule 1(m) came to be omitted by Act 104 of 1976, simultaneously, Rule XLIII Rule 1A came to be inserted by the very Act 104 of 1976, which provides that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded. Therefore, the High Court has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi,AIR 1993 SC 1139 (para9) and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3376 of 1995 was maintainable. No error has been committed by the High Court in holding so."
39.3 The Apex Court in case of Vidur Impex ( supra) has already held that impleadment, if is sought after the undue delay, the same can be declined.
39.4 It is thus well settled that in an appeal against the decree passed in a suit for recording a compromise, it is open for the appellant to contest that the compromise should not have been recorded. The law is clear that the right of plaintiff to withdraw the suit is unconditional and absolute, unless of course, crystallised rights are noticed of the third parties.
39.5 This Court is conscious of the fact that it is a case of unconditional withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not of setting aside the consent decree under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is surely not the case that the plaintiff is withdrawing the suit pursuant to any compromise arrived at with the defendant. It is a case of an unconditional withdrawal of the suit by exercising the statutory right. The order of status quo granted by this Court also is incapable of taking away Page 25 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.
39.6 It is also to be noted that the compromise decree arrived at purportedly between Mr. Patel and the society by putting up a face of his accountant, who was his own man and this collusive decree is the reason of plethora of litigations for such a protracted period. The subsequent dealing of Mr. Kantilal Patel and involving other parties also by entering into the agreements, again are required to be scrutinized at the hands of the competent Court to decide as to whether they are of speculative in nature. However, the fact remains that the agreement arrived at between Mr. Kantilal Patel and Mr. Kalpesh Patel appears to be in breach of the status quo order dated 28.
03. 2018. He is stranger to the litigation between the heir of Mr. Kantilal Patel and the societies and there is no transfer of interest in his favour. Ms. Dolly Patel is disputing the alleged agreement executed with him. Even without trusting her words, by noticing her objections in the impleadment, the sheer fact of his having filed a separate suit to enforce agreement with Ms. Dolly Patel, he has, when taken a recourse to the remedy, cannot be permitted to take any objection and his such objection for the withdrawal is not found sustainable, neither can he be permitted to be impleaded as the party in appeal nor can his objection to withdrawal of the suit be sustained.
39.7 Some of the decisions, which he has sought to press into, for allowing him to be impleaded as party, shall need to be dealt with.
(1) In case of A. Nawab John and others vs. V. N. Suramaniyam, reported in ( 2012) 7 SCC 738, this decision permits the transferee pendente lite to be allowed to be joined liberally. However, it is a general principle of joinder of the party where a purchaser ( owner) pendente lite was permitted to be joined, but in a very peculiar facts of the instant case, this decision will not apply.
(2) In case of Premchand J. Panchal Vs. Shahjahabanu Liyakatkhan Pathan & Ors. , reported in ( 2012) 2 GLR 1121 where the party is seeking to implead itself pendente lite was on account of his lack of Page 26 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined knowledge of the pending suit of the purchaser, but the ratio is well laid down, however, the same would not apply in his case.
39.8 Here, Ms. Dolly Patel, the heir of Mr. Kantilal Patel, is withdrawing the suit even though she has acquired the interest in the suit property. This withdrawal would be governed under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Kalpesh Patel was never a party to the suit, his very existence as a party interested in the property was not there when the suit was decreed, even if, such interest had accrued over a period of time. His own litigation would not prejudice his right by way of a present withdrawal. He being the third party will not have this right to object to the same.
40. We notice that couple of the decisions have been pressed into service, which say that agreement which transfers right to receive fruits of litigation are valid in law.
40.1 In case of Valluri Ramanamma vs Marina Viranna, reported in 1931 TLW ( 33) 757 is the judgment which deals with the legal proposition that the agreement which is speculative in nature and the litigation if is purchased for a pittance of money is unconscionably and extortionate agreement. Such an agreement is champertous and void as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
40.2 In the case of Kedar Lal vs. Babu Lal Vyas and others, reported in ( 2003) 9 SCC 624, the Apex Court has held that the agreement which transfers the right to receive fruits of litigation is valid in law. Likewise, the decision of Amirtham Kudumbah vs. Sarnam Kudumbah, reported in ( 1991) 3 SCC 20 speaks of a right of a minor to challenge the voidable transfer made by the guardian.
40.3 In case of Union of India vs. Shri Sharda Mills, reported in 1972 ( 2) SCC 877 the Apex Court held at paragraph No. 51 that a mere right to sue cannot be transferred as that would offend the rule of champerty and maintenance.
41. It prima facie appears that the agreement is of getting a share in the property at the end of the Page 27 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined litigation where Mr. Kalpesh Patel has undertaken to fund and manage the entire litigation pertaining to the property. This Court would not choose to opine as to whether this would amount to the speculative nature of agreement or not, since that may prejudice the rights of the parties in their respective litigation. It will not be necessary for referring to other decisions.
42. So far as Mr. Talati and M/s. Jalaram Developers are concerned, some of these decisions which they are relying upon are already discussed and they are not be reiterated.
43. The Court needs to deal with a few of these decisions to hold why they would not come to the rescue of the third parties, which have pressed into service, in relation to the request to implead itself as a party.
(1) In case of Suresh Kumar Bansal vs. Krishna Bansal and another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 162 the impleadment application was filed on the basis of a will in a rent suit. The trial Court rejected the same on the ground that the will did not appear to be genuine. The impleadment was permitted by the Apex Court subject to the outcome of probate proceedings. There can be no dispute with regard to the impleadment of the 3rd party when its interest lies in the suit properties.
44. A strong contention raised against the withdrawal is conduct of the plaintiff, as according to the 3rd party, the respondent is not the plaintiff. The trial Court is required to deal with all these issues and this Court may not allow such withdrawal. At the best, the Court can send it back to the trial Court and not to consider the request. The affidavit also is not to be treated according to the 3rd party as an application as these are appeals and not a writ petition. The volition of withdrawal, at this stage, is only to overcome the decision of the learned Single Judge.
45. By filing an affidavit, request of withdrawal is made and this court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the original plaintiff has passed away and the respondent is the heir if Mr. Kantilal Page 28 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Patel. Here is not the case of two parties having compromised seeking to regale out of the same nor that if matter is sent to the trial court concerned, those parties are to contest these issues. Here is a clear case of obtaining the compromise decree by perpetrating fraud upon the court and the State instrumentalities and the fruits of such unpalatable and unsustainable decree having been enjoyed by also getting registered sale deeds executed of land of societies. Therefore, with such gross facts, when the heirs of the deceased volunteers to withdraw, no valid factor exists to deny such withdrawal. In the process, this heir if has chosen to take advantage by opportunistic tendencies, by process of law, the same needs to be established.
46. xxx xxx xxx.
46.1 xxx xxx xxx.
47. xxx xxx xxx.
48. xxx xxx xxx.
48.1 xxx xxx xxx.
49. xxx xxx xxx.
49.1 xxx xxx xxx.
50. xxx xxx xxx.
51. xxx xxx xxx.
52. xxx xxx xxx.
53. xxx xxx xxx.
53.1 xxx xxx xxx.
54. xxx xxx xxx.
55. xxx xxx xxx.
55.1 xxx xxx xxx.
55.2 xxx xxx xxx.
55.3 xxx xxx xxx.
56. xxx xxx xxx.
Page 29 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
57. In this background, we are of the clear opinion that this all has happened on account of dishonest act on the part of Mr. Kantilal Patel and some of his accomplices. However, his heir Ms. Dolly Patel, whose role, at various stages, has been questioned, if has chosen to withdraw the suit simpliciter, which is the root cause of all these disputes and protracted litigations, with the pendency of Criminal Case against Ms. Dolly Patel and her family as well as against others, the request for withdrawal can surely be permitted, as an appeal being the continuity of the suit proceedings under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Objections to such withdrawal may not be sustained.
58. Resultantly, the so called consent decree dated
30. 04. 2005 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside in wake of this withdrawal with all consequential effect of subsequent steps pursuant to the decree also."
20. In view of above observation made by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in First Appeal No.1827/2021, as quoted above, it is clear that the rights of the third party have already been crystallized by the Division Bench and the same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP preferred by the third party. On careful examination of the findings given by the Division Bench, it has been held that third party has independent remedy and that their rights are not prejudiced by the withdrawal of the suit and the status quo order granted by the Court continues to operate but it does not restrict the plaintiff's statutory right to withdraw the suit, therefore, the said decision does not set a new precedent but applies established principle regarding the plaintiff's right to withdraw the nature of Page 30 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined champertous agreements, and third party impleadment.
21. At this stage, a useful reference can be made to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court delivered in Manoramya Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Soparkar, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has observed as under, "14.1 In the case of Anil Dinmani (supra), the Bombay High Court while considering Order 23 Rule 1 CPC opined that as soon as an application is filed, the withdrawal of the suit is complete. Such withdrawal is not dependent on the court's order. Paragraph no. 3 of the order of the Bombay High Court reads as under:
"3. Order XXIII. r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the plaintiff at any time after the institution of the suit to abandon the suit or abandon a part of the claim in the suit against all or any of the defendants. No permission of the Court is necessary for the plaintiff to unconditionally abandon his claim or any part of his claim against all or one or more of the defendants. Abandonment is complete as soon as the plaintiff informs the Court. No order of the Court is necessary though the Court often passes formal order recording the abandonment. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Prasad v. Durga Prasad wherein the Court observed in paragraph No. 12 of the Judgment as follows:
"Every applicant has a right to unconditionally withdraw his application and his unilateral act in that behalf is sufficient. No order of the Court is necessary permitting him to withdraw the application. The Court may take a formal order disposing of the application as withdrawn but the withdrawal is not Page 31 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined dependent on the order of the Court. The act of withdrawal is complete as soon as the applicant intimates the Court that he withdraws the application.""
14.3 In the present case, the objector is not even a defendant. She has filed an application to be joined as a defendant on the basis of an MOU entered into in her favour by Mr. Ashish Patel. Subsequently since Mr. Ashish Patel entered into an MOU dated 01.02.1996 and 20.12.2006 with the plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 303 of 1995 and the financial arrangements are settled, these MOUs have been substantially challenged by the sole petitioner by way of a separate substantial suit being Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 2007 in the Civil Court, Gandhinagar to declare these MOUs as forged and fabricated. The stand of Ms. Tina Mehta that the MOUs are fabricated and backdated is the subject matter of the proceedings of SCS No. 64 of 2007. No proceedings have been initiated for specific performance of MOU dated 05.04.1999. In these facts, the objector - intended defendant has filed a separate suit which is pending. In the earlier part while considering the privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the objector in such circumstances, she has no locus to object to the suits being withdrawn. In fact Mr. Thakore has during the course of submissions conceded that there is no objection if Koteshwar Trust - plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 302 of 1995 is permitted to withdraw the suit, however, the plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 303 of 1995 - Manoramya Resorts cannot be permitted to do so. For the reasons, I find that even for Special Civil Suit No. 303 of 1995, the petitioner cannot object to the suit being withdrawn."
22. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that every applicant has a right to unconditionally withdraw his application, for which, no order of the Hon'ble Court is required permitting him to withdraw the said application and on submission of such application, the Hon'ble Court may pass a formal order disposing of the Page 32 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined said application as withdrawn. It is required to be noted that earlier the suit itself had been withdrawn with all consequential benefits and at that point of time, very third party had made an attempt to join them as party respondent, which the Division Bench had not accepted, therefore, they had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court raising all contentions available to them and despite the said fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had turned down their request, copies of memo of said SLP is produced on record. Therefore when the rights of the party has already been decided and crystallized and base itself is not available, in that event, again it cannot be permitted, otherwise, it would cause unnecessary harassment to a person, who is seeking unconditional withdrawal. Over and above that, main writ petitions have been preferred challenging the revenue proceedings, wherein entries have been cancelled. It is, therefore, required to be noted that as stated above, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, suit itself is already withdrawn, therefore, base itself is not available and there is no bar to grant permission for the withdrawal of the petition when the settlement is arrived at between the parties.
23. At this stage, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Narharibhai Chaturbhai Patel (supra), upon which Page 33 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Patel, wherein this Hon'ble Court has made observations in Paragraph Nos.19, 20 and 21, which read as under, "19. It also required to be noted that if the plaintiff has settled his dispute with the original defendant and if the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit unconditionally, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse such unconditional withdrawal, unless there is any counter claim or set-off claimed by the defendant in the said suit.
20. In the instance case, there is no counter claim made by the defendant or set off claimed by the defendant in the said suit preferred by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that if it is the suit for partition, it would stand on the different footing. In such partition suit, the cause of action of the plaintiff and some of the defendants and in such a case, Court can permit such defendants to be transposed as plaintiffs but that is not the situation in the present case. In my view, therefore, the trial Court has committed error of jurisdiction by refusing such unconditional withdrawal of the suit. When the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit, the conduct of the plaintiff was not relevant for permitting him to withdraw the suit if he wanted to withdraw the suit unconditionally. It is required to be noted that question regarding whether the respondent no.1 is required to be transposed as plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1(A) of the Code arose subsequently for determination and the first question, which requires consideration is whether the plaintiff can be permitted to withdraw the suit unconditionally and if it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the suit, naturally, there is no question of permitting the defendant/respondent to be transposed as the plaintiff.
21. As pointed out earlier, respondent no.1 herein, who wanted to be transposed in the present suit as the plaintiff can raise all the available contents in its own suit being Special Civil Suit No. 139 of 2005 including the admission if any made by the present plaintiff in the suit in question. Therefore, the trial court has failed Page 34 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined to exercise its jurisdiction by not permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally and has exercised its jurisdiction with malafide irregularity, and therefore, the order in question is required to be quashed by this Court by exercising the powers under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff of the original Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 2001 cannot be compelled to continue his suit even if he wants to withdraw it unconditionally by permitting the defendant to be transposed as the plaintiff alongwith the original plaintiff.
24. I would also like to refer to and reply upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Dineshbhai Mohanbhai (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Patel, wherein this Hon'ble Court has made observations in Paragraph Nos.49 and 50, which read as under, "49. I have considered the argument of both the sides.
The issue involved in this matter is very simple, whether the plaintiff has absolute right to withdraw the suit unconditionally and under what circumstances the Court can refuse such withdrawal. In my view, the Trial Court has committed error of jurisdiction by not permitting the original plaintiffs to withdraw their suit unconditionally. It is required to be noted that it cannot be said that there is common cause of action so far as rights of original plaintiffs and third party are concerned. It cannot be said that there is common interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants, like common interest of parties in a partition suit. In my view, simply because the plaintiffs have made certain admission in the suit, that itself, cannot be made the basis for refusing the withdrawal of the suit, if the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw the suit unconditionally. The applicant-third party can rely upon such admissions as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, in the suits filed by them, which are still pending.
50. It is also required to be noted that the third party applicants are not even defendants in the present suit and for the first time, they gave an Page 35 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined application Exh.57, requesting the Court to permit them to be joined as co-plaintiffs in the suit. If the respondents No.2 to 5 have any independent right, naturally they can pursue the same in the suits, which they have already filed. So far as argument of Mr.A.J.Patel regarding Sec. 15 (b) of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, which provides that the specific performance of the contract should be obtained by the representative in interest of the principal of any party thereto, the said aspect can be highlighted by the applicants in the suits, which they have already filed and which are pending. The question whether there is any assignment in favour of the applicants, is a question which is required to be decided in the suits filed by them and withdrawal of the present would not in any way prejudice the rights of third party- applicants and the suits filed by the third party-applicants are required to be decided on their own merits and the applicants can raise all the points available to them in those suits.
25. Coming back to the present case, it appears that here in the present case, the dispute pertains to cancellation of the entries mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed, which were taken into suo motu. It is required to be noted that as stated above, the applicants herein had entered into sale transaction with 5 - Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Societies and as the sale deed was not executed, suit for specific performance was filed, wherein settlement was arrived at and, thereafter, sale deeds have been executed in favour of the applicants and, thereafter, they came in possession of the land in question. However in none of the above proceedings, third party, who is sought to be impleaded as party respondent in the main writ petitions, was not there. Over and above that, as stated above, in Page 36 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the plaint instituted by the applicants herein, they have also tried to implead themselves in those proceedings, however, it was not permitted, against which, writ petition was preferred before this Hon'ble Court, which was also rejected, therefore, SLP was also preferred, which was also dismissed. Therefore having failed in all earlier attempts, that too, when the rights of the third party have already been decided and crystallized by the Hon'ble Court, one more attempt is being made to allow them to enter into the proceedings again, which in my considered opinion, cannot be permitted.
26. At this stage, I would like to refer to provision of Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC" for sake of brevity), which provides that where a plaintiff is precluded from instituting a further suit in respect of a particular cause of action then, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of that cause of action in any court to which the CPC applies. The rationale underlying this provision is the prevention of (i) endless litigation; (ii) wastage of court's precious time; and (iii) abuse of legal procedure by litigants. The Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium i.e. it is in the interest of the society that litigation comes to an end. Therefore, if a plaint attracts Section 12 CPC, it is automatically not maintainable. However, like almost every rule of Page 37 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined law this one also has exceptions. One such exception is provided in sub-rule (3) of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC[2]. As per sub-rule (3), the court concerned is empowered, upon an application, to allow a plaintiff to withdraw his defective suit, take necessary steps to cure that defect and then institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action and claiming same reliefs. This provision is quite important since in its absence, at a later stage of trial the maintainability of suit would be questioned by the defendant which could potentially make the entire process of civil trial infructuous, thereby robbing the plaintiff of his legal rights and remedies and leading to wastage of the court's time and resources as well. Further with the passage of time, Order 23 Rule 1(3) and its nuances have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts across the country, sometimes leading to contradicting judicial opinions as well.
27. Thus here in the present case, what is sought to be claimed by the applicants is withdrawal of the proceedings pending before this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the issue is whether the withdrawal can be permitted on mere application filed or the aspect of rights acquired under the decree, need to be examined. In the above background, the provisions of the Code so also the facts are required to be considered. Relevant would be Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code, which provides for Page 38 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. It states that any time, after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants, abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23 gives a liberty in favour of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. To appreciate the controversy germen in the application, it is apposite to refer Order 23 Rule, which reads as under :-
"1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.--
(1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim:
Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court.
(2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person.
(3) Where the Court is satisfied,--
(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or
(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim Page 39 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim.
(4) Where the plaintiff--
(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-
rule (1), or
(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub- rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.
(5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorise the Court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiff.
3. Compromise of suit.--
Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise 1 in writing and signed by the parties] or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:
Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such Page 40 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined adjournment."
28. Reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code suggest that it gives liberty to the plaintiff at any time after the institution of the suit against all or any of the defendants, to abandon the suit or part of the claim. So far as Rule 3 is concerned, the same provides for compromise of the suit and satisfaction of the Court, followed by passing of decree in accordance therewith. Here in the present case, as can be seen from the facts narrated above coupled with the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the dispute pertains to rival parties have already been amicably settled, therefore, they have prayed for withdrawal of the proceedings. However against the said withdrawal of the proceedings, third party is having objection despite the fact that their rights have already been crystallized. However as can be seen from the detailed observations and discussion made by the Division Bench while passing judgment dated 22.09.2022 in First Appeal No.1827 of 2021 and allied matters that third party can be permitted to establish their independent rights before the respective courts in their civil litigation, which they may establish at future stage. Over and above that, it is required to be noted that here in the present proceedings, third party has filed applications for joining them as party respondents in main writ petitions, which have not been yet Page 41 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined decided. However at the time of deciding the applications for withdrawal of the proceedings, their applications for impleadment are decided simultaneously, therefore it can be said that they have already availed opportunities to address this Court on merit of the matter and as mentioned above, when they are already having their independent rights to pursue the remedy, their impleadment may not be necessary.
29. At this stage, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sugandhi (dead) by LRs & Anr. Vs. P Rajkumar Rep by His Power Agent Imam Oli, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under, "[9] It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute....."
(emphasis supplied)
30. It would also profitable to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Karla Vs. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri & Ors., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394, wherein it has been observed as under, Page 42 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "7. At the outset, there is no gainsaying that the procedural justice is imbibed to provide further impetus to the substantive justice. It is this extended procedural fairness provided by the national courts, which adds to the legitimacy and commends support of general public. On the other hand, we must be mindful of the legislative intention to provide for certainty and clarity.
In the name of substantive justice, providing unlimited and unrestricted rights in itself will be detrimental to certainty and would lead to the state of lawlessness. In this regard, this Court needs to recognize and harmoniously stitch the two types of justice, so as to have an effective, accurate and participatory judicial system.
14. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to note that any provision under the procedural law should not be construed in such a way that it would leave the Court helpless [refer to Salem Advocate Bar Association Case (supra)]. In fact a wide discretion has been given to the civil court regarding the procedural elements of a suit. As held by this Court, procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice.
18. As discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs, the whole purpose of the procedural law is to ensure that the legal process is made more effective in the process of delivering substantial justice. Particularly, the purpose of introducing Rule 6A in Order VIII of the CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by driving the parties to file separate suit and see that the dispute between the parties is decided finally. If the provision is interpreted in such a way, to allow delayed filling of the counter- claim, the provision itself becomes redundant and the purpose for which the amendment is made will be defeated and ultimately it leads to flagrant miscarriage of justice. At the same time, there cannot be a rigid and hyper technical approach that the provision stipulates that the counter claim has to be filed along with the written statement and beyond that, the Court has no power. The Courts, taking into consideration the reasons stated in support of the counter claim, should adopt a balanced approach keeping in mind the object behind the amendment and to subserve the ends of justice. There cannot be any hard and Page 43 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined fast rule to say that in a particular time the counterclaim has to be filed, by curtailing the discretion conferred on the Courts. The trial court has to exercise the discretion judiciously and come to a definite conclusion that by allowing the counterclaim, no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, process is not unduly delayed and the same is in the best interest of justice and as per the objects sought to be achieved through the amendment. But however, we are of the considered opinion that the defendant cannot be permitted to file counterclaim after the issues are framed and after the suit has proceeded substantially. It would defeat the cause of justice and be detrimental to the principle of speedy justice as enshrined in the objects and reasons for the particular amendment to the CPC.
50. It is well settled that procedural rules should not be interpreted so as to defeat justice, rather than furthering it. This is because procedural law is not meant to serve as a tyrant against justice, but to act as a lubricant in its administration. Thus, when Courts set out to do justice, they should not lose sight of the end goal amidst technicalities. In some cases, this means that rules that have traditionally been treated as mandatory, may be moulded so that their object and substantive justice is not obstructed. It would be apposite to remember that equity and justice should be the foremost considerations while construing procedural rules, without nullifying the object of the Legislature in totality......"
(emphasis supplied)
31. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid decisions and its ratio would clearly indicate that any rule of procedure so prescribed under CPC is handmaid of justice, thereby, technical hurdle is not to be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice unless procedure violation cause serious prejudice to the advisory party. It is also settled legal position that any provision under procedure of law should not be Page 44 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined construed in such a way that it would leave the Court helpless. Thus, when the Court requires to interpret any procedural law as provided under CPC, such factors requires to be taken into account, thereby, it can advance substantial justice to the parties albeit, by doing so not to cause any injustice to advisory party.
32. At this stage, I would like to reiterate that while passing judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed in First Appeal No.1827/201, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has also considered the provision of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the withdrawal of suits. The said provision allows a plaintiff to withdraw a suit or abandon a part of their claim. However, if they withdraw without the court's permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, they are barred from instituting any fresh suit on the same subject matter. However in the present case on hand, as discussed above, the applicants have prayed for withdrawal of the proceeding unconditionally on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, therefore, it can be permitted to be allowed despite having objection of third party, whose rights have already been crystallized.
33. Therefore in view of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons and in view of the provision of the Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, such withdrawal is permissible. Therefore without Page 45 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7670/2013 IA ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined entering into merits or de-merits of the matter, I am inclined to allow the applications filed for withdrawal of the main proceedings. Therefore, the present applications deserve to be allowed.
34. Accordingly, the present applicants seeking withdrawal of main writ petitions stand allowed as prayed for. Therefore main writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.7670/2013 and Special Civil Application No.7671/2013 are permitted to be withdrawn. Connected application/s, if any, stand/s disposed of.
35. In view of the fact that in the applications for withdrawal of the proceedings preferred by the applicants - original petitioners, submissions have already been made, therefore, no order is required to be passed thereon. Accordingly, Civil Application No.1/2013, Civil Application No.1/2018 and Civil Application No.2/2018 all three in Special Civil Application No.7670/2013 as well as Civil Application No.1/2018 and Civil Application No.2/2018 both in Special Civil Application No.7671/2013 are hereby disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 46 of 46 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:36:11 IST 2026