The Court clarified that discretionary power under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC to grant leave to withdraw and refile a suit must be exercised by judicially applying mind to the specific case facts; non-speaking, generic orders are legally unsustainable. This judgment affirms existing precedent regarding the requirement for reasoned and speaking orders, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts must record cogent reasons before allowing withdrawal with liberty to file afresh, especially after adjudication on merits. It holds binding value for subordinate courts within the jurisdiction and has persuasive value more broadly for civil litigation practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/6558/2024 of AMRIK SINGH Vs LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011531302024 |
| Date of Registration | 07-11-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (High Court); Persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure — Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appellate court can permit withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, by a non-speaking order, after the suit was already fully adjudicated on merits at trial stage. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that the power to grant leave to withdraw a suit with liberty to file afresh under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC is a discretionary one, which must be exercised with caution and on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Generic, non-speaking orders simply restating legal principles without discussing the case-specific factual matrix amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and are unsustainable. The appellate court must record reasons reflecting its application of mind to the suitability and consequences of allowing withdrawal after adjudication on merits, as such action may prejudice vested rights and undermine the finality in litigation. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision by a reasoned and speaking order. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sant Baba Darshan Singh Sewak Baba Kharak Singh vs School Beerh Baba Budha Sahib and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 160 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment emphasizes the legislative policy in Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC requiring satisfaction of either formal defect or sufficient grounds for withdrawal. It refers to the duty of courts to avoid prejudice to parties and uphold the principle of finality. It relies on the precedent emphasizing that appellate courts should not permit withdrawal in abstract but must analyze the factual background and implications of the order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory decree and injunction, claiming joint ownership in ancestral property, which was dismissed after trial, holding that the suit property was self-acquired by the petitioner. On appeal, respondent No.1 applied to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh; the appellate court granted this by a non-speaking order. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing it prejudiced his vested rights from the trial court judgment after prolonged litigation. |
| Citations | 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 160 (Sant Baba Darshan Singh etc.) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, appellate authorities dealing with civil suits and withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC |
| Follows | Sant Baba Darshan Singh Sewak Baba Kharak Singh vs School Beerh Baba Budha Sahib and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 160 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that appellate courts must issue reasoned and speaking orders when allowing withdrawal of suits with liberty to file afresh, especially at the appellate stage and after a detailed trial.
- Non-speaking, perfunctory grants of such leave are legally unsustainable and subject to reversal.
- The duty to consider case-specific facts — including prejudice to the defendant and finality of litigation — is now judicially reaffirmed.
- Lawyers may cite this decision to challenge orders that do not engage with the facts and implications, particularly where vested rights from previous adjudication would be prejudiced.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reiterated the twin preconditions under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC for permitting withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file afresh: (a) the suit must fail for a formal defect, or (b) there are sufficient grounds for such withdrawal.
- Emphasizing judicial discretion, the Court cited and relied on Sant Baba Darshan Singh Sewak Baba Kharak Singh (2006), which underscores the need for courts to exercise caution and circumspection and warns against mechanical, generic application of law without addressing case-specific circumstances.
- The High Court found that the appellate court’s order was “non-speaking” — lacking any discussion on how the facts justified withdrawal, especially after a full-fledged adjudication at trial and the passage of substantial time.
- The Court highlighted prejudice to the petitioner, whose rights were crystalized through trial judgment and argued that allowing such withdrawal indiscriminately undermines finality and invites renewed litigation on settled disputes.
- Consequently, it held the impugned order void for failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law and remanded the matter for a proper, reasoned decision after hearing parties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The trial court judgment in their favour had reached finality after full adjudication; the suit property was adjudged as self-acquired.
- Allowing withdrawal with liberty to file afresh by a non-speaking order undermines vested rights and leads to potential fresh litigation on an already settled issue.
- The impugned order is legally unsustainable, fails to apply judicial mind, and should be set aside.
Respondent:
No submission or appearance at the time of hearing as recorded in the order.
Factual Background
Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of co-ownership and permanent injunction in respect of alleged ancestral property, claiming either half or one-third share pursuant to an oral family settlement or as co-parcenary property. The petitioner (defendant No.1) denied these claims, stating the property was his self-acquired asset. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the petitioner’s exclusive ownership. On appeal, respondent No.1 sought to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh, which the appellate court allowed by a non-speaking order. The petitioner then challenged this order before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was the core statutory provision interpreted. It allows withdrawal of a suit and filing afresh where the court is “satisfied” either of a formal defect or “sufficient grounds”.
- The Court clarified that “satisfaction” must be judicially arrived at, based on facts and consequences in the specific case — not by generic or mechanical recitation of legal requirements.
- Reference was made to the legislative policy behind this provision: to strike a balance between rectifying technical defects or genuinely sufficient grounds, and preventing abuse of process or prejudice to parties.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the established principle that withdrawal with liberty should not be allowed by a non-speaking order and must be anchored in judicious application of mind to the case facts.
Citations
- Sant Baba Darshan Singh Sewak Baba Kharak Singh vs School Beerh Baba Budha Sahib and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 160