This revision dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order dismissing his application to withdraw a suit under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. The court held no error of jurisdiction occurred as the petitioner intended to file a fresh suit.
Revision petition dismissed; pending application(s) dismissed; parties directed to appear before lower court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CR No.: 120 of 2012 Decided on: 15.5.2013
Nand Lal ………Petitioner.
Versus Meena ………Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the petitioner: Mr.Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral):
This revision is directed against the order, dated 4.6.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Application No.71S/6 of 2012, filed in Civil Appeal No.12-S/13 of 2011, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC to withdraw the suit.
1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
In the application, the petitioner has stated that due to formal or technical defect, the suit may fail, so the applicant intends to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh, on fresh cause of action.
May 15, 2013(tilak)
(Kuldip Singh), Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission for withdrawal of suit under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was required when the applicant intended to file a fresh suit on fresh cause of action.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nand Lal
Meena
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
