Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Samaddi Sheikh Vs. Fulbash Bewa and anr.

Samaddi Sheikh vs Fulbash Bewa and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 12, 1922
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/862913

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908,), Order XXII, Rule 1 - Suit, withdrawal of, with liberty to bring fresh suit--Court trying subsequent suit cannot question propriety of order. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Samaddi Sheikh

Respondent

Fulbash Bewa and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Hridyanath Roy v. Ram Chandra Barua Sarma
Reported In
AIR1923Cal269,65Ind.Cas.704

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908,), order xxii, rule 1 - suit, withdrawal of, with liberty to bring fresh suit--court trying subsequent suit cannot question propriety of order. - 1. the suit out of which this appeal arises has been dismissed by the courts below, on the ground that the leave granted to the plaintiff in a previous suit to institute a fresh suit was improper.2. the courts below proceeded upon the view taken in the case of kali prasanna sil v. panchanan nandi chowdhury 33 ind. cas. 670 : 23 c.l.j. 489 : 20 c.w.n. 1000 : 44 c. 367, the same case in 20 calcutta weekly notes, 1000. but that case has been overruled by the full bench in hridyanath roy v. ram chandra barua sarma 58 ind. cas. 806 : 24 c.w.n. 723 : 31 c.l.t. 482 : 48 c. 133 (f.b.) where it was laid down that the court trying the subsequent suit it not competent to enter into the question whether the court which granted the plaintiff permission to withdraw the first suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit had properly made such order.3. it is contended by the learned pleader for the respondents that the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the appeal and not the suit. but the order clearly states that it gave him liberty to bring a fresh suit and awarded the defendant costs of both courts. taking the order as a whole there in no doubt that the suit was allowed to be withdrawn and with liberty to bring a fresh suit.4. the orders of the courts below must accordingly be set aside and the case sent back to the court of first instance for trial on the merits.5. costs to abide the result.

Full Judgment

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises has been dismissed by the Courts below, on the ground that the leave granted to the plaintiff in a previous suit to institute a fresh suit was improper.

2. The Courts below proceeded upon the view taken in the case of Kali Prasanna Sil v. Panchanan Nandi Chowdhury 33 Ind. Cas. 670 : 23 C.L.J. 489 : 20 C.W.N. 1000 : 44 C. 367, the same case in 20 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 1000. But that case has been overruled by the Full Bench in Hridyanath Roy v. Ram Chandra Barua Sarma 58 Ind. Cas. 806 : 24 C.W.N. 723 : 31 C.L.T. 482 : 48 C. 133 (F.B.) where it was laid down that the Court trying the subsequent suit it not competent to enter into the question whether the Court which granted the plaintiff permission to withdraw the first suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit had properly made such order.

3. It is contended by the learned Pleader for the respondents that the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the appeal and not the suit. But the order clearly states that it gave him liberty to bring a fresh suit and awarded the defendant costs of both Courts. Taking the order as a whole there in no doubt that the suit was allowed to be withdrawn and with liberty to bring a fresh suit.

4. The orders of the Courts below must accordingly be set aside and the case sent back to the Court of first instance for trial on the merits.

5. Costs to abide the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial