The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a party to a civil suit cannot seek to withdraw the case against certain defendants merely by filing a memo instead of an application, and held that such relief must be sought in accordance with the procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed against the trial court’s order that had rejected such a memo.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari in C.R.P. No. 1753 of 2025, arising from a suit filed before the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
Background of the Case
The revision petitioner, Josyula Srinivasa Rao, who is the second plaintiff in O.S. No. 103 of 2012, had instituted the suit for cancellation of an agreement of sale and an acceptance deed dated 30.10.2008. The suit was filed against 66 defendants.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo before the trial court, seeking to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos. 6 to 66. It was contended that these parties were not necessary for adjudicating the relief of specific performance of contract sought in the suit.
However, the XIII Additional District Judge rejected the memo through an order dated 10.04.2025, holding that no judicial order can be passed on a memo.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.V. Phaniduth, argued that the petitioner merely intended to withdraw the suit against parties who were not necessary for the relief claimed. It was submitted that the prayer was not governed by Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and hence the memo should have been accepted.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Tilhari emphasized that both the nature of the prayer and the manner in which the relief is sought are material.
“Withdrawal of a suit, whether in whole or in part, is a substantive act governed by specific procedural requirements under the CPC. Therefore, such relief must be sought by filing an application in accordance with the procedure prescribed in CPC,” the Court stated.
The Court reiterated that the CPC is a complete code and that parties must follow the procedure prescribed for making any prayer in a pending suit. Referring to the appropriate procedure, the Court observed:
“The prayer has been made in the memo on the ground that defendant Nos.6 to 66 are not necessary parties. For seeking such relief, and for deletion of their names from the array of parties, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC may be the appropriate provision.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal provision under which a memo, instead of an application, could be filed for such a purpose.
“Once remedy is prescribed by the CPC, the same has to be availed in the manner prescribed,” the Court concluded.
Decision
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, holding that it lacked merit. The Court made no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also directed to be closed.
