Dismissed¶40

Smt P Suma v. Smt Lakshmi

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026WP/23150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

When the defendant filed the written statement denying the plaintiff's title, the plaintiff had an opportunity to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction; the belated withdrawal application was therefore not justified. ¶38

Smt P Suma Vs Smt Lakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should be allowed, setting aside the trial Court's order dated 15.04.2025 dismissing the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the 2014 injunction suit with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit on the same cause of action.

¶23

Court's answer

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Nothing was stated in the affidavit as to when the defendant took possession of the property, and on the face of it the petitioner came before the Court only to overcome the limitation in instituting a fresh suit.

¶38

Key takeaways

The trial Court rightly considered the objections and the provisions of law and dismissed the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC; this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff, whose suit for injunction (O.S.No.1661/2014, II Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) instituted in 2014 had reached the stage of arguments, applied under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit for declaration, possession and related reliefs, contending (per her affidavit) that the defendant had taken advantage of the non-extension of the interim order and taken possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 15.04.2025, observing that the Court's satisfaction is a must for such withdrawal, that a plaintiff who failed to conduct the suit with care cannot use the rule to avoid past conduct so as to prejudice the opposite party, and that discretion to grant liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action must be exercised with caution and circumspection. The High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti J.) held that when the defendant denied the plaintiff's title in the written statement, the plaintiff already had the opportunity to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit; that nothing was stated as to when possession was allegedly taken; and that on the face of it the application was made only to overcome limitation for a fresh suit. Finding the trial Court's dismissal correct, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and closed all pending I.As.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32761 WP No. 23150 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23150 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT P.SUMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.980, NETRAVATHI NADI ROAD PIPE LINE, SRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 050

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VAIJAYANTHIMALA B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT LAKSHMI D/O. NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.93, 3^RD CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA MUTTA LAYOUT KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA BENGALURU-560 019

¶16

(BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 1661/2024 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32761 WP No. 23150 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2025 passed on an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC in O.S.No.1661/2014 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶24

The petitioner filed a suit for an injunction in 2014. Now, the application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC was filed seeking to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file a comprehensive suit, which was dismissed by the order impugned. The trial Court, while dismissing the application, has observed that on perusal of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, it is clear that the satisfaction of the Court is a must for withdrawal of the suit for filing the same on the same cause of action, and the trial Court has to apply its mind while allowing the application. The plaintiffs are very much aware about the written statement contentions of the defendants. When the matter is set forth for arguments, the plaintiff has come up with the present application. At this juncture, the plaintiff cannot take recourse to the provision of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC on the ground of same cause of action. The object of the rule is not to enable the

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32761 WP No. 23150 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

plaintiff, if they have failed to conduct the suit with proper care and diligence, to obtain an opportunity of commencing the suit in order to avoid previous bad conduct of the case so as to prejudice the opposite party. The grant of liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action is at the discretion of the trial Court, but such discretion is to be exercised by the Court with caution and circumspection. Merely stating that, the grant of liberty would not prejudice the defendant is not compliance with statutory mandate. The court has observed that the suit was instituted way back in the year 2014 and after 11 years, the plaintiffs now, at this juncture, when the matter is set down for arguments intends to withdraw the suit. The court is not satisfied with regard to the existence of proper grounds, and the court felt that it is not a case where the court can give permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and accordingly, dismissed the case and for arguments, the matter was directed to be called on 25.04.2025.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, initially the suit was filed for injunction and during the pendency of the suit the defendants have

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:32761 WP No. 23150 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

forcibly entered into possession of the property. For recovery of

¶33

possession, declaration and other reliefs, they have to file a comprehensive suit for injunction. As such, they sought the liberty of the Court to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Court has failed to consider the same and without assigning proper reasons, has dismissed the application. Hence, the order impugned needs to be set aside, or else lot of prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, perused the material on record. This is a suit for injunction, of the year 2014. Admittedly, when the matter was set down for arguments, an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC was filed seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This Court has perused the affidavit that is filed. In the affidavit, it is stated that the defendant has taken advantage of the nonextension of the interim order, taken possession of the suit schedule property illegally, and denied ownership over the suit schedule property; as such, they filed the suit for declaration, possession, and for seeking delivery of the property, and they

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:32761 WP No. 23150 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

need to file a comprehensive suit. Hence, they sought to withdraw the petition. When the defendant filed the written statement and denied the plaintiff's title, they had an opportunity to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction, and the second relief sought is that the defendant has taken possession of the property. Nothing has been stated regarding when the possession was taken by the defendant. On the face of it, the petitioner has come before the Court only to overcome the limitation in instituting a fresh suit. The trial Court has rightly considered the objections and the provisions of law and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40