Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

2011 INSC 34

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 984 of 2006, decided on January 12, 2011

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

S.S Mishra, Rajkumar Parasher and Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advocates, for the Appellant;
P.K Jain, P.K Goswami, Ashok K. Sharma, Praveen Kr. Mutreja, Subodh Kumar and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Judges

Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.

Acts

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant instituted Suit No. 1301 of 1997 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi. During the pendency of the suit the appellant filed an application seeking to withdraw the suit. Before any judicial order was passed on that request, he changed his mind and submitted a second application asking the court to permit withdrawal of the earlier withdrawal application. The trial court dismissed this second application, and the High Court of Allahabad, by judgment dated 6-2-2004 in FAFO No. 2103 of 2003, upheld that dismissal on the ground that the suit stood withdrawn the moment the first application was filed. The appellant challenged the High Court’s view by special leave before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the mere filing of an application to withdraw a suit results in automatic dismissal of the suit without a formal judicial order.
Whether a litigant is legally entitled to file an application withdrawing an earlier withdrawal application when no order has yet been passed on the first application.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey, ILR (1883) 5 All 163	Courts should presume that procedural steps are permitted unless expressly prohibited by law.	Relied upon to reject the view that a second application was barred; established that procedural flexibility exists in the absence of an express prohibition.
Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim Sen, AIR 1966 All 84 (Full Bench)	Affirmed the principle from Narsingh Das concerning permissibility of procedural actions.	Cited with approval to reinforce the maintainability of withdrawing a withdrawal application under the court’s inherent powers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules are “handmaids of justice” and must be construed to advance, not obstruct, substantive justice. Invoking Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court observed that inherent powers authorize any procedure that is not expressly forbidden. It rejected the High Court’s view that a suit stands automatically dismissed upon filing a withdrawal application, noting the absence of any statutory bar preventing a party from retracting such an application before an order is passed. By adopting the principles in Narsingh Das and the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain Saxena, the Court concluded that the second application—seeking withdrawal of the earlier withdrawal request—was legally maintainable.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and directed that Suit No. 1301 of 1997 proceed to a decision on the merits without delay. No order as to costs.

Implication: The decision clarifies that filing a withdrawal application does not, by itself, terminate a suit; until the court formally orders withdrawal, the plaintiff may seek to retract that request. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s inherent procedural flexibility but does not establish a new precedent beyond reaffirming established principles.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra And Others

Order

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Respondents 1 to 3. No one appeared for Respondent 4.

2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 6-2-2004 passed in FAFO No. 2103 of 2003. It appears that the appellant was the plaintiff in Suit No. 1301 of 1997 before the Court of the 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. In Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey ILR (1883) 5 All 163, Mahmood, J. 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.”

6. The above view was followed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim Sen AIR 1966 All 84 and we agree with this view. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the application praying for withdrawal of the withdrawal application was maintainable. We order accordingly.

7. 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.

Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra And Others

Comments