This revision petition challenges the dismissal of an application to withdraw a civil suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, stating the court correctly dismissed the application, noting withdrawal does not bar statutory remedies.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937
CRP.No. 87 of 2016 () ---------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A NO.226/2016 IN A.S 12/2010 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
---------------------------------------------------------------
O.KUMARI AGED 43 YEARS W/O. HARIDAS, ODATH HOUSE, POST KOTHACHIRA (VIA) PERINGODE, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------1. ARUNODAYAM VAYANASALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POST KOTHACHIRA (VIA) PERINGODE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679535. 2. THE SECRETARY TALUK LIBRARY COUNCIL, 'NILA', PATTITHARA POST OTTAPALAM TALUK-679534. 3. THE SECRETARY PALAKKAD DISTRICT LIBRARY COUNCIL, SULTHANPET PALAKKAD-678001. 4. THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, POST BOX NO. 6501 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 5. D.VASUDEVAN NAIR S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, ARUNODAYAM VAYANASALA POST KOTHACHIRA, (VIA) PERINGODE OTTAPALAM TALUK-679535.
6. MURALIDHARAN S/O. LATE SUBRAHMANIAN @ APPUNNI MASTER JOINT SECRETARY, ARUNODAYAM VAYANASALA, MOOTHAT HOUSE POST KOTHACHIRA (VIA), PERINGODE, OTTAPALAM TALUK PIN-679535.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP.No. 87 of 2016 ()
APPEDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
| **ANNEXURE A1 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S 115/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI. |
|---|---|---|
| **ANNEXURE A2 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.9.2007. |
| **ANNEXURE A3 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3 IN O.S NO.115/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI. |
| ANNEXUREA4 | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S 115/2007 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI DATED 30.11.2009. |
| **ANNEXURE A5 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL A.S 12/2010 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
| **ANNEXURE A6 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.12.2015 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| **ANNEXURE A7 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRIT PETITION © NO.1353/2016 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. |
| **ANNEXURE A8 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A 226/2016 IN A.S 12/2010 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
| **ANNEXURE A9 ** | : | PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1, 5 AND 6 IN I.A 226/2016 IN A.S 12/2010 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. |
| RESPONDENTS' | EX | HIBITS: NIL |
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J. ======================= C.R.P No.87 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2016
ORDER
Petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S No.115 of 2007 of Munsiff Court, Pattambi. The suit was found not maintainable and accordingly it was dismissed. She has challenged the decree in A.S No.12 of 2010 of Sub Court, Ottapalam. During the pendency of the appeal she filed I.A No.226 of 2016 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and to take recourse to the remedies available under the relevant statute. That has been dismissed by the appellate court. Its correctness is challenged.
the application. When an application to withdraw a suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action is filed, the court has to either allow it or dismiss it. No other order it can pass on such an application. That is what has been done by the
C.R.P. No.87/2016
2
appellate court. Learned counsel submits that the withdrawal of the suit shall not be an impediment for the petitioner to pursue her remedies under the statute. I have no doubt that the withdrawal will not stand in the way of claiming her right, if any, under the relevant statute.
In the result, with the above observation, this C.R.P is
closed.
Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE
vdv/15/02/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of an application to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit is maintainable in a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
O.KUMARI
ARUNODAYAM VAYANASALA (SECRETARY)
SECRETARY TALUK LIBRARY COUNCIL
SECRETARY PALAKKAD DISTRICT LIBRARY COUNCIL
SECRETARY KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL
D.VASUDEVAN NAIR
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
