Arun Sharma Vs Sushma Devi — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arun Sharma Vs Sushma Devi — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioners permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, conditioned on refiling within four weeks and with Section 14 of the Limitation Act applicable; upon withdrawal the impugned order loses its efficacy and the petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the suit, on account of a formal defect in the plaint, with liberty to file the same afresh on the same cause of action.

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the same afresh on the same cause of action.

Ratio / Principle

While computing the period of limitation for filing the fresh suit, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall apply.

Key takeaways

The liberty to file afresh is available only if the needful is done within four weeks, failing which the liberty so granted shall not be available.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Romesh Verma, Judge), CMPMO No. 354 of 2022, decided 12.03.2026: Arun Sharma & another v. Sushma Devi. The petition challenged the order of the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, H.P., dated 05.04.2022, rejecting the petitioners' application to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to delete defendant No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. At hearing, counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the suit, on account of a formal defect in the plaint, with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action; respondent's counsel did not oppose. Permission was granted, subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act applying in computing limitation for the fresh suit, and conditional on the fresh suit being filed within four weeks, failing which the liberty lapses. On withdrawal, the impugned order lost efficacy and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 354 of 2022 Decided on : 12.03.2026

Arun Sharma & another ...Petitioners. Versus Sushma Devi ..Respondent. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sana Rana, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate, (through V.C.) and Ms. Ananya Verma, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

The present petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, H.P., on 05.04.2022, whereby an application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deleting the name of defendant No. 2 from the array of parties was considered and prayer for amendment was rejected.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that on account of a formal defect in the plaint, they may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the same afresh on the same cause of action.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

The said submission is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the same afresh on the same cause of action.

Needless to say, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable while computing the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the fresh suit.

It is, however, ordered that the aforesaid liberty shall be available to the petitioners only in case the needful is done within four weeks from today, positively, failing which the liberty so granted shall not be available to the plaintiff/petitioner.

In view of the withdrawal of the Civil Suit, the impugned order loses its efficacy. The present petition is dismissed as having being withdrawn.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge

March 12, 2026

(Nisha)