Skip to content


Dalip Singh Vs. Rajinder Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 794 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1972P& H279
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23, Rule 1
AppellantDalip Singh
RespondentRajinder Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - from the statement of shri rajinder singh, plaintiff, made today in court overleaf, i am satisfied that there is a formal defect in the frame and form of this suit. a bare reading of the said order would show that no reasons have been given by the learned judge as to how he came to the conclusion that the requirements of order 23, rule 1 were satisfied in this case. it is not sufficient to say that from the statement of the plaintiff, the court was satisfied that there was a formal defect 'in the frame and form of the suit'.curiously enough even the said statement had not been recorded in the order......the eye of law. a bare reading of the said order would show that no reasons have been given by the learned judge as to how he came to the conclusion that the requirements of order 23, rule 1 were satisfied in this case. it is not sufficient to say that from the statement of the plaintiff, the court was satisfied that there was a formal defect 'in the frame and form of the suit'. curiously enough even the said statement had not been recorded in the order. the suit had gone on for quite some time, when the plaintiff made the statement, referred to in the impugned order. the learned judge should have examined the provisions of order 23, rule 1, code of civil procedure, before giving the necessary permission to the plaintiff. needless to say that the same could be granted only if the case.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a defendant's revision petition against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge accepting the plaintiff's application under O. 23, R. 1, Code of Civil Procedure for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring another one on the same cause of action.

2. The impugned order reads:

'From the statement of Shri Rajinder Singh, plaintiff, made today in Court overleaf, I am satisfied that there is a formal defect in the frame and form of this suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw this suit with liberty to file a fresh one in respect of the same subject matter on payment of Rs.20/- as costs. The suit is dismissed, as withdrawn. The file be consigned on completion and the documents if any, be returned to the parties'.

3. This petition is accepted on the short ground that the impugned order is no judgment in the eye of law. A bare reading of the said order would show that no reasons have been given by the learned Judge as to how he came to the conclusion that the requirements of Order 23, Rule 1 were satisfied in this case. It is not sufficient to say that from the statement of the plaintiff, the court was satisfied that there was a formal defect 'in the frame and form of the suit'. Curiously enough even the said statement had not been recorded in the order. The suit had gone on for quite some time, when the plaintiff made the statement, referred to in the impugned order. The learned Judge should have examined the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, before giving the necessary permission to the plaintiff. Needless to say that the same could be granted only if the case fell within the four-corners of the said rule.

4. This petition is accordingly, accepted the impugned order set aside and the trial Judge is directed to hear the parties again and decide the case afresh. Parties have been directed to appear before him on 19th October, 1971. There will, however, be order as to costs.

5. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //