@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Tarun Agarwala, J.@mdashHoard Sri. ML K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the defendants-respondents.
3. The petitioner Is the plaintiff and had instituted a suit against the defendant for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from transferring the property in question, The plaintiff alleged that he is owner of the property In question on the basis of inheritance. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff came to know about the existence of the sale deed which is alleged to have been issued by his lather, in his favour, and, therefore he moved an application for the withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit bringing this fact about the execution of the sale deed in the subsequent suit. This application was partly allowed by the trial Court. The trial Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the suit but did not. grant liberty to file a fresh suit. The plantiff filed a Misc. Appeal which was also rejected as not maintainable. Consequently, the writ petition.
4. The application for the withdrawal of the suit was filed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC which reads as under:
3. Compromise of suit.- Where It Is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, (in writing and signed by the parties) or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith (so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit):
(Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.)
5. The trial Court has partly allowed the application for the withdrawal of the suit but did not grant any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit on the ground that there was no formal defect in the suit filed by the plaintiff.
6. In the opinion of the Court, the order of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The trial Court has only considered the Clsuse (a) of Sub-clause (3) of Order XXIII of the CPC and has not considered Clsuse (b). The plaintiff had given the reasons for the withdrawal of the suit and on that basis, sought a liberty to file a fresh suit. The ground raised by petitioner has not been considered by the trial Court under Sub-clause (b) of Clause 3 of order XXIII.
7. Further in the opinion of the Court, the trial Court could not split the prayer of the defendant in two parts. The relief claimed by the plaintiff was a composite relief, namely, withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. This relief cannot be split up by the trial Court in two parts. The application has to be allowed in toto or has to be rejected in toto. The Court has no Jurisdiction to split up the relief in two parts unless the plaintiff gives his consent to that effect.
8. In
9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to reconsider the application afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made above.
10. In the event, the defendants are aggrieved by this order, it is open to the defendants to move a recall application within four weeks from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of his order before the Court below.
