Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.56 seconds)K.S. Bhoopathy And Ors vs Kokila And Ors on 8 May, 2000
"The law as to withdrawal of suits as enacted in the
present Rule may be generally stated in two parts; (a) a
plaintiff can abandon a suit or abandon a part of his
claim as a matter of right without the permission of the
Court, in that case he will be precluded from suing
again on the same cause of action. Neither the plaintiff
can abandon a suit or a part of the suit reserving to
himself a right to bring a fresh suit, nor can the
defendant insist that the plaintiff must be compelled to
proceed with the suit; and (b) a plaintiff may, in the
circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (3), be permitted
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
CS(OS) 1728/2011 Page 6 of 11
Signing Date:05.01.2024
01:57:16
by the Court to withdraw from a suit with liberty to sue
afresh on the same cause of action. Such liberty being
granted by the Court enables me plaintiff to avoid the
bar in Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC."
Bhagwan Swaroop And Ors. vs Mool Chand And Ors. on 3 February, 1983
In the case of Bhagwan Swaroop & Ors. vs. Mool Chand & Ors.
(1983) 2 SCC 132, it was observed that in a partition suit of Joint Family
Property, the parties are closely interrelated and the position of plaintiffs and
defendants can be interchangeable. Therefore, each party adopts the same
position with the other parties.
Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera vs B.L. Shanker & Others on 28 October, 1983
Likewise, similar observations were made by
the Apex Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera vs. B.L. Shanker
and Ors. (1984) Supp. SCC 631.
Tukaram Mahadu Tandel vs Ramchandra Mahadu Tandel on 17 March, 1925
25. Further, in the case of Tukaram Mahadu Tandel vs. Ramchandra
Mahadu Tandel & Ors. (1925) SCC OnLine Bom. 206, the High Court of
Bombay had observed that in a partition suit a defendant who is also seeking
a share in the property is in the same position as the plaintiff and their
bonafide claims to a share in the property cannot be defeated by the
unilateral acts of the plaintiff and the suit must not be permitted to be
withdrawn or abandoned by the plaintiff without notice to the defendant who
are also having the same interest of seeking a share in the property in respect
of which a partition suit is filed by the plaintiff.
Shiv Prasad vs Durga Prasad & Anr on 12 February, 1975
18. The Apex Court in Shiv Prasad vs. Durga Prasad (1975) 1 SCC 405
had observed that every plaintiff has an unconditional right to withdraw his
suit and is unilateral act in this behalf is sufficient and no formal order of the
court is necessary. The court may make such formal orders, but the
withdrawal is not dependent on the order of the court. The withdrawal is
complete as the plaintiff intimates the court about its intention to withdraw
the suit.
Bijayananda Patnaik vs Satrughna Sahu And Others on 26 March, 1963
In Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup, (2009) 6 SCC 194, the Apex Court after
referring to Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu and Ors. (1964) 2 SCR
538; Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 886, held
that a right to withdraw a suit in the suitor would be unqualified, if no right
has been vested in any other party.
Hulas Rai Baij Nath vs Firm K. B. Bass & Co on 3 May, 1967
In Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup, (2009) 6 SCC 194, the Apex Court after
referring to Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu and Ors. (1964) 2 SCR
538; Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 886, held
that a right to withdraw a suit in the suitor would be unqualified, if no right
has been vested in any other party.
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sneh Gupta vs Devi Sarup & Ors on 17 February, 2009
In Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup, (2009) 6 SCC 194, the Apex Court after
referring to Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu and Ors. (1964) 2 SCR
538; Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 886, held
that a right to withdraw a suit in the suitor would be unqualified, if no right
has been vested in any other party.