AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 123 wordsIn the original vernacluar petition it is quite clear that what the petitioner asked for was liberty to withdraw with permission to bring a fresh suit.
In these circumstances following Golam Muhammad v. Shibendra Pada Banerjee I.L.R (1908) C. 990 we think that the order ''plaintiff is
permitted to withdraw from the suit'' must be read with the petition and construed as granting it. On the other construction the order is most
misleading to the petitioner and not an order contemplated by the Code.
We allow the Letters Patent Appeal with costs, and set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal to the District Judge for
disposal according to law, other costs will abide the result.