Question

Which of the following statements are correct with reference to withdrawal and abandonment of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? I. A plaintiff may withdraw or abandon a suit subject to the provisions of law. II. Institution of a fresh suit on the same cause of action requires permission of the court. III. Withdrawal of a suit without permission of the court to institute a fresh suit bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. IV. The court must grant permission whenever such request is made. Which of the above statements are correct?

• A. I, II, III and IV
• B. I, II and III
• C. I, III and IV
• D. II, III and IV

Hint:

Order XXIII Rule 1: Withdrawal is a choice, but fresh litigation is a privilege that requires Court permission. The Court's discretion is key here, not the plaintiff's whim!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Order XXIII Rule 1 can be tested by first checking whether Statements I through III form a consistent, accurate package, and then separately testing Statement IV.

Checking I through III together:
The rule allows withdrawal or abandonment subject to its own conditions, matching Statement I; it requires the court's permission before a fresh suit can be filed on the same cause of action, matching Statement II; and it expressly bars a subsequent suit where such permission was not obtained, matching Statement III. All three describe the same coherent scheme correctly.

Checking Statement IV separately:
The rule gives the court discretion to grant permission only where there are sufficient grounds, such as a formal defect in the earlier suit, so a claim that permission must always be granted on request misstates the rule as a matter of right rather than judicial discretion.

Conclusion:
Since I, II and III check out together while IV does not, the correct combination is exactly I, II and III.

\[ \boxed{\text{I, II and III}} \]

Answer 2

Order XXIII Rule 1 exists to give plaintiffs flexibility to withdraw a suit while still preventing them from endlessly relitigating the same cause of action without good reason. Testing each statement against that balancing purpose shows why only three of the four hold up.

1. Statement I: Allowing withdrawal, but only subject to the rule's own conditions, serves the purpose of giving plaintiffs flexibility without letting them escape the consequences the rule attaches.
2. Statement II: Requiring the court's permission before a fresh suit can be filed on the same cause of action serves the purpose of preventing plaintiffs from freely restarting litigation whenever convenient.
3. Statement III: Barring a subsequent suit where permission was not obtained reinforces that same purpose by attaching a real consequence to withdrawal without leave.
4. Statement IV: If courts had to grant permission every time it was asked for, the entire safeguard behind Statements II and III would collapse, since plaintiffs could withdraw and refile at will.

Because Statements I, II and III work together to serve the rule's purpose of controlled flexibility, while Statement IV would undo that purpose entirely, only the first three are correct.

Therefore, the correct answer is I, II and III.