The Allahabad High Court, in a significant Full Bench decision, has clarified the law regarding the withdrawal of civil suits under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Bench held that the mere filing of a withdrawal application does not result in the automatic dismissal of the suit without an affirmative order from the Court. Furthermore, a plaintiff retains the right to withdraw such an application before the Court passes a final order on it.
The Full Bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, Justice Rajeev Misra, and Justice Ajay Bhanot, answered a reference made by a learned Single Judge regarding the correctness of previous decisions in Raisa Sultana Begam and Meera Rai in light of Supreme Court rulings.
Legal Issue and Reference
The reference arose from a conflict of opinion regarding whether an application moved under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC leads to a withdrawal of the suit ipso facto (automatically) without the Court passing a specific order.
The Single Judge had framed two questions:
- Whether the decision in Raisa Sultana Begam (AIR 1996 All 318), holding that a withdrawal application leads to automatic withdrawal, is still good law.
- Whether the decision in Meera Rai (2017), regarding the lodging of an application to unconditionally withdraw a suit, lays down the correct law in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a suit filed in 1999 by one Smt. Munnan Devi seeking the cancellation of a sale deed executed in 1998. During the pendency of the suit, Munnan Devi sold the property to Jeera Devi and Ghanshyam Patel (the petitioners) in 2011. Following Munnan Devi’s death in 2013, her daughter, Smt. Phulpatti Devi, was substituted as the plaintiff.
In 2018, Phulpatti Devi moved an application to unconditionally withdraw the suit. Immediately, the purchasers (Jeera Devi and Ghanshyam Patel) filed applications under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking leave to continue the suit. The Trial Court rejected the withdrawal application and allowed the purchasers to continue. However, the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, reversed this in appeal, allowing the withdrawal and rejecting the purchasers’ applications. This led to the filing of the petition under Article 227.
Arguments
The counsel for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Sri Atul Dayal, relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 1137). He argued that there is no express bar in filing an application for “withdrawal of the withdrawal application.” He contended that the Anurag Mittal judgment was distinguishable as it arose under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Conversely, the respondents argued that the act of withdrawal is an act of retirement from contest and requires no further act of the Court to complete the action. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anurag Mittal to support the claim that withdrawal is effective immediately.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Full Bench extensively analyzed the conflicting judgments and the statutory provisions.
On Raisa Sultana Begam vs. Rajendra Prasad Gupta: The Court noted that the Division Bench in Raisa Sultana Begam had held that the act of withdrawal is complete upon information being conveyed to the Court. However, the Full Bench observed that the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Gupta explicitly held that “rules of procedure are handmaids of justice” and Section 151 of the CPC gives inherent powers to the Court. The Apex Court had stated, “There is no express bar in filing an application for withdrawal of the withdrawal application.”
Consequently, the High Court held that Raisa Sultana Begam lost its binding force due to the contrary ratio in Rajendra Prasad Gupta.
On Anurag Mittal: Addressing the respondent’s reliance on Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018), the Bench clarified that this decision operated in a different field. Anurag Mittal dealt with the interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the “relation back” theory regarding the withdrawal of appeals in matrimonial disputes to validate a second marriage.
The Court observed:
“Thus, we are unable to accept the submission as correct – that the ratio of Anurag Mittal (supra) is contrary to Rajendra Prasad Gupta (supra). Both decisions operate in different fields of law… Precisely, it deals with an interpretation and effect of Section 15 of the HMA.”
Role of the Court: The Bench emphasized that treating withdrawal as automatic would reduce the Court to a mere spectator.
“The court would become a mere postman or spectator, entirely dependent on the conduct of a plaintiff (except in cases of fraud), with no eye on or intent to address the needs of justice. That dictation of the procedural law to override the substantive law may never be consistent to the ends of justice.”
The Court affirmed that Order XXIII Rule 1 creates a right to withdraw, but this is not in derogation of Section 151 CPC, which allows a plaintiff to withdraw their withdrawal application before the Court grants its imprimatur.
Decision
The Full Bench answered the reference as follows:
- Question (i): Answered in the negative. The Court held that the ratio laid down in Raisa Sultana Begam is no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Rajendra Prasad Gupta.
- Question (ii): Answered in the negative regarding the doubt expressed. The Court opined that the decision in Meera Rai is good law, being consistent with the Supreme Court’s ratio in Rajendra Prasad Gupta.
The Court clarified that an application to withdraw a suit does not automatically dismiss the suit. A specific order is required, and until such an order is passed, the plaintiff retains the locus poenitentiae to withdraw the application.
The matter has been directed to be placed before the regular bench for further proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jeera Devi and another Versus Additional District Judge Court No.12, Varanasi and 2 others
Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. 4747 of 2019
Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Ajay Bhanot
