CRP/4980/2026 of G.Mani (Died),By Lrs, 1.M.Manjula Vs B.Lokesh on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA No. 1 of 2026 in AS No. 24 of 2025, dated 27.04.2026, on the file of the learned Sub

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026 Judge, Udhagamandalam, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/appellants under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of CPC, to grant leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

4. One G.Mani filed a suit in OS.No.1 of 2019, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, he died and hence the petitioners herein were substituted as plaintiffs.

5. The Trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 13.8.2025, dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the same, AS.No.24 of 2025, was filed before the sub Court, Uthagamandalam.

6. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed IA.No.1 of 2026 under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3)(b) of CPC, to grant leave to withdraw the suit

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that after the dismissal of the suit, the respondent has taken possession of the suit property and hence the petitioners wanted to file a comprehensive suit seeking for possession from the respondent.

7. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioners are attempting to circumvent the decree passed by the trial Court and the proper course of action for the petitioners is to pursue the appeal on merits or initiate independent proceedings based on the alleged subsequent dispossession in accordance with law. The Court below found that the appellants has failed to make out sufficient grounds to sustain the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.

8. In the considered view of this Court, the suit was filed seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence came to a conclusion that the defendant has clearly created a cloud over the title, hence, the bare injunction suit filed without seeking the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable and accordingly the suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Court below which is pending in AS.No.24 of 2025.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026

9. The present application was filed in IA.No.1 of 2026 to grant leave to withdraw the appeal and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action on the ground that the petitioners were dispossessed from the property and therefore the petitioners wanted to file a comprehensive suit against the defendant.

10. It is now too well settled that an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC, for withdrawal of suit with liberty to file a fresh suit is normally not entertained at the stage of appeal since the decree passed by the Trial Court would have crystallised the stand taken by both sides and if the party is allowed to withdraw the suit at the stage of appeal, it will cause serious prejudice to the rights of the defendant who have succeeded in the suit. In view of the same, the Apex Court has made it clear that such withdrawal can be allowed in the appeal only in very rare cases where strong reasons must be shown by the plaintiffs for the withdrawal and the Court must satisfy itself that such withdrawal does not adversely affect or prejudice the rights that has crystallised in favour of the defendant. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Avenue Supermarts Private Limited v. Nischint Bhalla and Others reported in (2016) 15 SCC 411.

11. In the case in hand, what has impelled the petitioners to file the application is the alleged dispossession from the suit property after the dismissal of the suit. If that is so, a new cause of action has arisen and it has to be

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026 independently agitated in the manner known to law. As rightly held by the Court below, the petitioners will have to either prosecute the appeal on merits or they have to initiate fresh proceedings in view of the subsequent cause of action that has arisen. This reasoning given by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

12. The suit has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the defendant has created a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs and the suit filed for bare injunction cannot be maintained. Therefore if the petitioners want to file a substantive suit for declaration of title and also seek for recovery of possession in view of the alleged dispossession after the disposal of the suit, they have to necessarily workout the remedy independently and the same cannot be done by way of filing the present application in the appeal.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court must grant leave to the petitioners to file a comprehensive suit. If such leave is granted by this Court, it will virtually amount to allowing the present CRP while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Therefore if law permits the petitioners to file a comprehensive suit and seek for the necessary reliefs, no such leave is necessary and it will be left open to the petitioners to workout their remedy in accordance with law.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026

14. In the result, the order passed by the Court below is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index:Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes kp

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026 To Sub Judge, Udhagamandalam.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )

CRP No. 4980 of 2026 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 4980 of 2026

15-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 02:36:21 pm )