Source:  High Court of Jammu and Kashmir 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjay Dhar held that “sufficient grounds” under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) must be interpreted broadly to allow withdrawal and refiling of suits in the interest of justice. 

• The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held this in the matter of Manzoor Ahmad Wani v. Ayaz Ahmad Raina (2025).

What was the Background of Manzoor Ahmad Wani Vs Ayaz Ahmad Raina, 2025 Case ? 

• Ayaz Ahmad Raina (plaintiff) filed a civil suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Manzoor Ahmad Wani (defendant) to restrain interference with his possession over a patch of land situated at Survey No.3063/1725 at Vailoo. 
• The plaintiff claimed that in 2010, the defendant had initially leased the suit land to him for establishing a car service station and later agreed to sell the property for Rs.50,000 as sale consideration. 
• Based on this alleged transaction, the plaintiff asserted rightful possession of the land and claimed to have invested approximately Rs.15 lakh in construction and maintenance of the property while regularly paying electricity and water charges. 
• The defendant, while admitting to handing over possession, contended that it was only on a licence basis with an annual fee of Rs.24,000 and denied any sale agreement or transfer of ownership rights. 
• The defendant stated that he required the land for personal use and was conducting construction on his adjacent land after obtaining proper NOCs and permissions from concerned authorities. 
• After the defendant filed his written statement, the case was scheduled for recording preliminary statements when the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. 
• The plaintiff cited factual and legal defects, omissions in the statement of facts, and various inadvertent mistakes of technical nature in the original pleadings as grounds for withdrawal. 
• The trial court allowed the withdrawal application, permitting the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, observing that improper relief sought constituted a formal defect. 
• Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a new suit with enhanced reliefs including declaration of ownership, specific performance of agreement dated 6th July 2011, and mandatory injunction for execution of sale deed. 
• The defendant challenged both the trial court's withdrawal permission and the maintainability of the fresh suit, arguing that no formal defect existed and that omitted reliefs could have been sought through amendment rather than fresh litigation.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court extensively examined Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC and held that the expression "sufficient grounds" grants wide judicial discretion to trial courts, which cannot be given restrictive meaning so as to shut out fair trial on merits. 
• The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that clause (b) must be read ejusdem generis with clause (a), clarifying that "sufficient grounds" are distinct and independent from "formal defects" based on the precedent in Fateh Shah v. Mst. Bega. 
• Justice Dhar emphasised that merely because some error has been made by the plaintiff in good faith, his case cannot be shut out as it would cause grave prejudice, and such error can only be set right by granting fresh trial opportunity. 
• The Court observed that the plaintiff's failure to seek appropriate declaratory and specific performance reliefs despite pleading relevant facts would inevitably result in suit failure, constituting "sufficient ground" under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b). 
• Dismissing the contention regarding amendment as an alternative, the Court held that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings) and Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC operate in distinct fields, and accepting the defendant's argument would render Order XXIII Rule 1 provisions redundant. 
• The Court found that the trial court exercised its discretion on sound legal principles in accordance with law, and such discretion cannot be subject to judicial review in supervisory jurisdiction. 
• Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding both the trial court's order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file fresh suit and the maintainability of the subsequent litigation. 

What is Order XXIII Rule 1(3)? 

• Court's Discretionary Power: Grants the court discretion to permit a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter 
• Two Grounds for Permission:  
  • (a) Formal Defect: When the court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect 
  • (b) Sufficient Grounds: When there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit 
• Formal Defects Include: Want of notice under Section 80 CPC, improper valuation, insufficient court fee, confusion regarding suit property identification, misjoinder of parties, failure to disclose cause of action 
• Sufficient Grounds: Independent and distinct from formal defects, granting wide judicial discretion to trial courts for fair trial on merits 
• Court's Terms and Conditions: The court may impose such terms as it thinks fit while granting permission 
• Same Subject Matter: Permission applies to withdrawal with liberty to institute fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter or part of the claim 
• Judicial Satisfaction Required: The court must be satisfied about the existence of either formal defect or sufficient grounds before granting permission 
• Prevents Abuse of Process: Ensures that the right to withdraw is not used to the detriment of legitimate rights of defendants 
• Liberal Interpretation: "Sufficient grounds" should be given wide connotation and not restrictive meaning to avoid shutting out fair trial on merits 
• Distinct from Amendment: Operates independently from Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings) and serves different purposes in civil procedure