Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors
- SCC(2011) 2 SCC 705
- Neutral2011 INSC 34
- AIRAIR 2011 SC 1137
- SCR[2011] 1 SCR 321
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Procedural rules are instruments for the administration of justice, not ends in themselves; an application to withdraw a withdrawal application is maintainable as there is no express bar in the Code of Civil Procedure against such an application. The court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted to permit every procedure for doing justice unless expressly prohibited by law, and prohibition of a procedure cannot be presumed in the absence of an express statutory bar. A suit does not stand automatically dismissed merely upon filing an application for withdrawal; an order on the withdrawal application remains necessary, and until such order is passed, an application to withdraw the withdrawal application may be entertained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No one appeared for respondent No. 4.
This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 06.02.2004 passed in FAFO No.2103/2003.
It appears that the appellant was the plaintiff in Suit No. 1301 of 1997 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Varanasi. He filed an application to withdraw the said suit. Subsequently, it appears that he changed his mind and before an order could be passed in the withdrawal application he filed an application praying for withdrawal of the earlier withdrawal application. The second application had been dismissed and that order was upheld by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
:1:
The High Court was of the view that once the application for withdrawal of the suit is filed the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn even without any order on the withdrawal application. Hence, the second application was not maintainable. We do not agree.
Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted. There is no express bar in filing an application for withdrawal of the withdrawal application.
In Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey, ILR 5 All 163 (FB)
(1882), Mr. Justice Mahmood, the celebrated Judge of the Allahabad High Court, observed :-
"Courts are not to act upon the
principle that every procedure is to be
taken as prohibited unless it is
expressly provided for by the Code, but
on the converse principle that every
procedure is to be understood as
permissible till it is shown to be
prohibited by the law. As a matter of
general principle prohibition cannot
be presumed."
The above view was followed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain Saxena Vs. Bhim Sen & others, AIR 1966 Allahabad 84 FB, and we agree with this view.
:2:
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the application praying for withdrawal of the withdrawal application was maintainable. We order accordingly.
In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. No costs.
The suit shall proceed and to be decided on merits, expeditiously .
.....................J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
.....................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 12, 2011
:3:
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free