High Court of Karnataka Allows Civil Revision Petition in Suit Dismissal Dispute — Rejects Trial Court's Refusal to Permit Withdrawal of Suit as Not Pressed. Plaintiff's right to withdraw suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC upheld; mere filing of written statement or framing of issues does not bar withdrawal.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, since deceased represented by her legal representatives, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.8121/2012. The trial court had rejected the memo filed by the plaintiff seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the plaintiff has a right to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and the mere filing of a written statement or framing of issues does not bar such withdrawal. The court found that the trial court's order was not in accordance with law and suffered from material irregularity. Consequently, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the memo filed by the plaintiff, thereby dismissing the suit as not pressed. The court directed that the suit stands dismissed as not pressed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Suit - Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC - Dismissal as not pressed - The plaintiff filed a memo seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed. The trial court rejected the memo on the ground that the defendant had already filed a written statement and issues were framed. The High Court held that the plaintiff has a right to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and the mere filing of a written statement or framing of issues does not bar such withdrawal. The court set aside the order and allowed the memo, dismissing the suit as not pressed. (Paras 1-3)

B) Civil Procedure - Civil Revision - Section 115 CPC - Interference with interlocutory order - The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, set aside the trial court's order rejecting the memo for dismissal as not pressed, as the order suffered from material irregularity and was not in accordance with law. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the memo filed by the plaintiff seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed, on the ground that the defendant had already filed a written statement and issues were framed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 21.03.2024, and allowed the memo filed by the plaintiff, thereby dismissing the suit as not pressed.

Law Points

  • Right to withdraw suit
  • Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC
  • Dismissal as not pressed
  • Memo for dismissal
  • Rejection of memo
  • Civil revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 36

Civil Revision Petition No.144 of 2025

2025-07-30

M. Nagaprasanna

Sri Sainath (for petitioners), Sri Ramachandra G. Bhat (for respondents)

Smt. Sheshamma (since deceased by LRs: Smt. N. Prathiba Raja Kumari, Sri N. Keerthiraj, Sri Rajesh Kumar N.)

Sri Ramesh Kumar, Jayanthimala

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petition challenging rejection of memo for dismissal of suit as not pressed.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 21.03.2024 rejecting the memo and to allow the memo to dismiss the suit as not pressed.

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the plaintiff's memo seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed an order on 21.03.2024 rejecting the memo.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the memo for dismissal of suit as not pressed on the ground that written statement was filed and issues were framed.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the plaintiff has a right to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and the trial court erred in rejecting the memo. Respondents opposed the petition, but the judgment does not detail their arguments.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff has a right to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and the mere filing of a written statement or framing of issues does not bar such withdrawal. The trial court's rejection of the memo was not in accordance with law and suffered from material irregularity.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff, since deceased represented by her legal representatives/petitioners 1(a) to 1(c) are before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.03.2024, passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.8121 of 2012, rejecting the memo filed by the plaintiff seeking dismissal the suit as not pressed.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.8121/2012. The plaintiff filed a memo seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed. The trial court rejected the memo on 21.03.2024. The plaintiff's legal representatives filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court. The High Court reserved orders on 10.07.2025 and pronounced on 30.07.2025, allowing the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order XXIII Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal for Correction of Date of Birth in Government Service Record — Belated Application and Lack of Evidence Lead to Dismissal. Fundamental Rule 56 Note 6 Requires Correction Within Five Years of Entry into Service.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Village Panchayat's Writ Petitions as Not Maintainable Against Orders of Additional Director of Panchayats Under Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — Panchayat Cannot Challenge Appellate Orders Passed Under Section 66...