Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) Where the plaintiff withdraws from a suit or abandons part of a claim, without the permission referred to in Sub-rule (2), 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.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorize the Court to permit one of several plaintiffs to withdraw without the consent of the others.

46. In my opinion, the contention of Mr. Bose is correct so far as the meaning and scope of sub-rule (4) is concerned. The justice of the rule given in Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. can hardly be denied. It sometimes may unfortunately happen to a plaintiff that he finds before the hearing that his action is one in which he cannot possibly succeed. Or it may be that he finds that, although there is a fair possibility of his succeeding against some, or one, of the defendants, there is no likelihood of his getting judgment against another or others of them. The rules and orders accordingly give him power to withdraw. So far as Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. is concerned, the active power of the Court is limited, except as to costs, to those cases where the plaintiff asks for permission to withdraw with liberty to bring a fresh suit. Where a plaintiff abandons or withdraws at his own will before any issue has been tried and decided, Order 23, Rule 1(3), Civil P.C. will prevent his repetition of the suit. Where he does so after any issue has been tried and decided, Section 11, Civil P.C. will add a further barrier thereto. But, whatever may be the legal effect of the plaintiff's action, so far as unconditional withdrawal is concerned, the plaintiff is the master of his own procedure. It is only when he seeks to avoid the above barriers, so as to leave the subject-matter of the lis open to future treatment, that he gets beyond his depth, and must invoke the aid of the Court. The Court alone can give him liberty to bring a fresh suit and to a prayer for such relief Sub-rule (2) applies. The main object of this section is to prevent a defeat of justice on technical grounds. It recognizes the possibility of human error made in good faith which can only be effectively set right by proceeding de novo. In proper cases to further the ends of justice and not to set a premium on carelessness or merely to give another opportunity to a plaintiff who has been defeated after a fair trial, it allows the plaintiff to wash out his genuine errors in procedure, and to begin over again with a clean slate. The grounds upon which a locus pcenitentise of this kind is permitted are placed in the section under two heads, the one special and the other general. Sub-rule (2) of this Rule 1 alone confers some power on the Court to permit withdrawal. The Court may have, and perhaps has, power to permit withdrawal even outside this rule. But so far as the power conferred upon it by the rule is concerned, it is controlled and restricted by Sub-rule (4). The authority of the rule does not empower the Court to permit withdrawal in the case of several plaintiffs without the consent of these plaintiffs. Sub-rule (4) thus applies only when permission is required and then again only when such permission is to be given in exercise of the power given to the Court by this rule. Outside the provisions of Sub-rule (2) the Court has no power to permit withdrawal with liberty to bring a fresh suit. It follows, therefore, that whenever a plaintiff wants to withdraw with such liberty, the Court cannot permit him to do so without the consent of the other plaintiffs. No other consideration can arise if the other plaintiffs withhold such consent. If, however, they give their con-sent, then the bar imposed by Sub-rule (4) to the exercise of the power conferred by Sub-rule (2) is removed. The Court can now exercise that power. But the exercise of the power itself being discretionary, the Court may take into consideration the interest of the defendants. But in my opinion, the scope of Sub-rule (1) is not as wide as Mr. Bose contends, though it may not be quite so narrow as Dr. Sen Gupta urges. In order fully to appreciate the meaning and scope of Sub-rule (1) we must not lose sight of the provisions like those contained in Order 1, Rule 1, Civil P.C. for the joinder of plaintiffs, which stands thus: