Clarification of procedural requirements under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC in permitting withdrawal of suit; upholds existing precedent and provides binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR No. 5186 of 2023 of SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs JAGJIT SINGH @ JAGDISH SINGH AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011138422023 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a trial court can grant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC without recording its satisfaction and reasons. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The trial court must record its satisfaction—either that the suit must fail for a formal defect or that there are sufficient grounds to allow a fresh suit—before permitting withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. Failure to give any reasons vitiates the impugned order and requires remand for a reasoned decision. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding conditions for withdrawal and refiling of suit. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC requires the court to record satisfaction and give reasons, failing which the order is vitiated.
- Reinforces that permission to refile must be granted only upon formal defects or sufficient grounds being explicitly stated.
- Establishes that an order without reasons on an application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) warrants remand for a reasoned order.
- Provides a binding precedent for challenging withdrawal orders in civil proceedings lacking judicial reasoning.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examination of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC: Court must be “satisfied” of either a formal defect or sufficient grounds to permit withdrawal and refiling.
- Identification of defect: Trial court did not record any satisfaction or reasons when allowing withdrawal.
- Consequence: Absence of reasoning vitiates the impugned order.
- Remedy: Set aside the withdrawal order and remand to trial court to decide afresh, on merits, with reasons.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Defendant in the suit)
- The impugned order was passed without any reasons.
- The withdrawal application was belated and no evidence remained to be led.
- Formal defects alleged by plaintiff had not been established.
Respondent (Plaintiff in the suit)
- Sought withdrawal to include an additional sale-deed inadvertently omitted and to implead necessary defendants.
- Claimed formal defects justified a fresh suit.
Factual Background
A civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff challenging two sale-deeds and subsequent mutations. At the stage of the plaintiff’s evidence and after opportunities to produce evidence expired, the plaintiff applied under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC to withdraw the suit and file a fresh one to include another sale-deed and additional defendants. The trial court granted leave to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action but gave no reasons. The defendant challenged this order as lacking the required judicial satisfaction and reasoning.
Statutory Analysis
- Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC: Empowers the court to permit withdrawal and refiling if it is “satisfied” that (a) the suit must fail due to a formal defect, or (b) there are sufficient grounds to allow a fresh suit.
- Requirement of Reasons: The court must record its satisfaction on the application and provide reasons; omission undermines the validity of the order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural norms or guidelines beyond the established requirements of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC were introduced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforces existing procedural requirement under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.
Citations
No reported citations or paragraph numbers were referenced in the judgment.