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
8 paragraphs · 195 wordsCurgenven, J.—The petitioner as plaintiff applied Under Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule 2, Criminal P. C, for permission to withdraw from his
suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. The learned District Munsif, while refusing to grant such liberty, has
thought that it was open to him to accept the former portion of the application and to allow the withdrawal of the suit. I think there is no doubt that
an application of this kind must be treated as an indivisible whole and if a party is not allowed liberty to institute a fresh suit his pending suit should
not be dismissed, but the application should be refused altogether and the suit should be retained upon the file. This is the view taken in Bhagwat
Pershad v. Lachmi Pershad [1911] 10 I.C 346, and Mahant Biharidasji v. Parshotamdas [1908]32Bom345, and appears to me to be clearly
reasonable. I must therefore allow the petition, set aside the District Munsif''s order and direct the District Munsif to rehear and dispose of the
application. As the respondent has not contested the petition before me each party will bear his own costs.