Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed sum- marily.

Aggrieved by the above order rejecting the writ petition at the stage of admission, the petitioner has filed the above special leave petition requesting the Court to grant the special leave to prefer an appeal against the order of the High Court.

The main contention urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the High Court was in error in rejecting the writ petition out of which this case arises, on the ground that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petition in which he had ques- tioned the order passed by the Tribunal on 4.10. 1985 with- out the permission of the High Court to file a fresh peti- tion. It is urged by the learned counsel that since the High Court had not decided the earlier petition on merits but only had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition, the withdrawal of the said earlier petition could not have been treated as a bar to the subsequent writ petition. In this case we are called upon to consider the effect of the withdrawal of the writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India without the permission of the High Court to file a fresh petition. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') are not in terms applicable to the writ proceedings although the procedure prescribed therein as far as it can be made applicable is followed by the High Court in disposing of the writ petitions. Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code provides for the withdrawal of a suit and the consequences of such withdrawal. Prior to its amendment by Act 104 of 1976, rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code provided for two kinds of withdrawal of a suit. namely, (i) absolute withdrawal, and (ii) withdrawal with the permission of the Court to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The first category of withdrawal was governed by sub-rule (1) thereof as it stood then, which provided that at any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff might, as against all or any of the defendants 'withdraw' his suit or abandon a part of his claim. The second category was gov-

erned by sub-rule (2) thereof which provided that where the Court was satisfied (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there were sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. it might, on such terms as it thought fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or abandon a part of a claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. Sub-rule (3) of the former rule 1 of order XXIII of the Code provided that where the plaintiff withdrew from a suit or abandoned a part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (2) he would be liable to. such costs as the Court might award and would be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. Since it was considered that the use of the word 'withdrawal' in relation to both the categories of withdraw- als led to confusion, the rule was amended to avoid such confusion. The relevant part of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code now reads thus:--

(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 daim 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 insti-

tuting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim."

It may be noted that while in sub-rule (1) of the former rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code the words 'withdraw his suit' had been used, in sub-rule (1) of the new rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code, the words 'abandon his suit' are used. The new sub-rule (1) is applicable to a case where the Court does not accord permission to withdraw from a suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. In the new sub-rule (3) which corre- sponds to the former sub-rule (2) practically no change is made and under that sub-rule the Court is empowered to grant subject to the conditions mentioned therein permission to withdraw from a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit. Sub-rule (4) of the new rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code provides that where the plaintiff abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1) or withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he would be liable for such costs as the Court might award and would also be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subjectmatter or such part of the claim. The Code as it now stands thus makes a distinction between 'abandonment' of a suit and 'withdrawal' from a suit with permission to file a fresh suit. It provides that where the plaintiff abandons a suit or withdraws from a suit without the permission, referred to in subrule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code, he shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. The principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito benificium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is rounded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in section 11 of the Code which provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or sub- stantially in issue has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudi- cation of a suit. or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit will not lie in sub-rule (4) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India also. It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel, to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seek- ing permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinari- ly grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ peti- tion because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao and Ors. v. The State of U.P. and Ors., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 575 in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this Court in Daryao's case (supra) is to be found at page 593 and it is as follows: