in the charge of one Bhagwat Charan who had colluded with the appellant and litigation was going on between the respondent and Bhagwat Charan for effecting partition of the business. Consequently, it was difficult to prosecute the suit, No prayer was made for permission to file a fresh suit. The appellant filed an application objecting to this application for with.

L9Sup. CI/67-13

888

drawal. The main ground taken for contesting this application for withdrawal was that, in a suit of this nature, it is permissible to pass a decree in favour of the defendant if, on accounting, something is found due to him against the plaintiff, and it followed that, if the defendant paid court-fee on 'the amount which was found due to him from the plaintiff, his position became that of ,A plaintiff himself and he became entitled to have 'the accounting done and to obtain a decree. It was urged that the plaintiff's game in withdrawing the suit after protracted duration and considerable expenditure on the part of the defendant was to defeat this right of the defendant. The trial Court held that the right of the plaintiff in this suit to withdraw under 0. 23, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inherent and such a right could be exercised at any time before judgment. All 'that the defendant could claim was an order for costs in his favour. The Court, therefore, dismissed the suit, awarding costs of the suit to the appellant. The appellant filed a revision in 'the High Court of Allahabad against this order, with a prayer that the High Court may set aside the order of the trial Court and remand the suit for trial according to law. The High Court dismissed the application for revision; and the appellant has now come tip to this Court in 'this appeal by special leave.

The short question that, in these circumstances, falls for decision is whether the respondent was entitled to withdraw from the suit and have it dismissed by the application dated 5th May, 1953 at the stage when issues had been framed and some evidence had been recorded, but no preliminary decree for rendition of accounts had yet been passed. The language of 0.23, r. 1. sub-r. (I ), C.P.C., gives an unqualified right to a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit and, if no permission to file a fresh suit is ,-ought under sub-r. (2) of that Rule, the plaintiff becomes liable for such costs as the Court may award and becomes precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of that subject-matter under sub- r. (3) of that Rule. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which requires the Court to refuse permission .to withdraw the suit in such circumstances and to compel tile plaintiff to proceed with it. It is, of course, possible that different considerations may arise where a set-off may have been claimed under 0. 8 C.P.C., or a counterclaim may have been filed, if permissible by the procedural law applicable to the proceedings governing the suit. In the present case. the pleadings in paragraphs 8 and II of the written statement. mentioned above, clearly did not amount to a claim for set-off. Further, there could be no counterclaim, because no provision is shown under which a counter-claim could have been filed in the trial Court in such a. suit. There is also the circumstance that the application for withdrawal was moved at a stage when no preliminary decree had been passed for rendition of account and, in fact, the appellant

889

was still contending that there could be no rendition of

3

accounts in the suit, because accounts had already been settled. Even in para 11, the only claim put forward was that, in case the Court found it necessary to direct rendition of accounts and any amount is found due to the appellant, a decree may be passed in favour of the appellant for that amount. In this paragraph also, the right claimed by the appellant was a contingent right which did not exist at the time when the written statement was filed. Even if it be assumed that the appellant could have claimed a decree for the amount found due to him after rendition of accounts, no Such right can possibly be held to exist before the Court passed preliminary decree for rendition of accounts. It is to be noted that in the case of a suit between principal and agent, it is the principal alone who has normally the right to claim rendition of accounts from the agent. The agent cannot ordinarily claim a decree for rendition of accounts from the principal and, in fact, in the suit, the appellant, who was the agent of the respondent, did not claim any rendition of accounts from the respondent. In 'these circumstances; at the stage of withdrawal of the suit, no vested right in favour of the appellant had come into existence and there was no ground on which the Court could refuse to allow withdrawal of the suit. It is unnecessary for us to express ,my opinion as to whether a Court is bound to allow withdrawal of a suit to a plaintiff after some vested right may have accrued in the suit in favour of the defendant. On the facts of this case. it is clear that the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit not at all affected by any vested right existing in favour of the appellant and, consequently, the order passed by the trial Court was perfectly justified.

On behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on the views expressed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Seethai Achi v. Meyappa Chetti (1), where the Court held:

"Ordinarily, when the Court finds no impediment to the dismissal of a suit after the announcement of the withdrawal of theclaim by the plaintiff, it will simply say that the suit is dismissed as the plaintiff has withdrawn from it. An order as to costs will also be passed. But several exceptions have been recognised to this general rule. ]n suits, for partition, if a preliminary. decree is passed declaring and defining the shares of the several parties, the suit will not be dismissed by reason of any subsequent withdrawal by the plaintiff, for the obvious reason that the rights declared in favour of the defendants under the preliminary decree would be rendered nugatory if the suit should simply be dismissed. So also in partnership suits and suits for

890

accounts, where the defendants too may be entitled to some reliefs in their favour as a result of the settlement of accounts, the withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff cannot end in the mere dismissal of the suit."

We do not think, as urged by learned counsel, that the learned Judges of the Madras High Court were laying down the principle that, in a suit for accounts, a defendant is always entitled to relief in his favour and that the withdrawal of such a suit by the plaintiff cannot be permitted to terminate the suit. In the context in which that Court expressed its opinion about suits for accounts, it clearly intended to lay down that the dismissal of the suit on plaintiff's withdrawal is not to be necessarily permitted, if the defendant has become entitled to a relief in his favour. But such it right, if at all, can in no

4

circumstances be held to accrue before a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts is passed. In fact, in mentioning suits for partition and suits for accounts, the Court was keeping in view the circumstance mentioned in the earlier sentence which envisaged that a preliminary decree had already been passed defining rights of parties. In any case, we do not think that any defendant in a suit for rendition of accounts can insist that the plaintiff must be compelled to proceed with the suit at such a stage as the one at which the respondent in the present case applied for withdrawal of the suit.

The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Y.P. Appeal dismissed

891