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.

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

Hint:

Under Order XXIII CPC, remember the rule: withdrawal is a right, but filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action requires leave of the court.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the source rule here, and the fastest way to answer is to test each Roman-numeral statement against its specific sub-rule rather than jumping between the answer combinations.

1. Statement I: Rule 1(1) allows a plaintiff to abandon a suit or part of a claim at any time, and Rule 1(3) allows withdrawal with liberty to sue afresh under specified conditions, so a general right to withdraw or abandon subject to the provisions of law is accurate.
2. Statement II: Rule 1(3) and Rule 1(4) make plain that a fresh suit on the same cause of action can only follow if the court had earlier granted permission to institute it, so a fresh suit does need the court's leave, and this statement is accurate.
3. Statement III: Rule 1(4) expressly bars a plaintiff who withdraws without such permission from bringing a fresh suit in respect of that subject matter, so this statement correctly describes the bar.
4. Statement IV: The rule uses satisfaction-based language, permitting the court to grant leave only where it is satisfied that the suit must fail for a formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds; the court is not obliged to grant leave on every request, so this statement is inaccurate.

Since I, II and III each track the rule correctly and IV does not, the option combining I, II and III is the one that matches Order XXIII.

Answer 2

The statements in this question split into two pairs worth comparing directly: Statements I and II, which describe the plaintiff's ordinary rights and their limits, and Statements III and IV, which are often confused with each other because both concern the consequence of withdrawing without prior permission.

1. Statement I compared with the general scheme: Order XXIII recognises that litigation belongs to the plaintiff to pursue or drop, so long as statutory conditions are respected; this is an unqualified starting proposition and stands correct.
2. Statement II compared with Statement III: Statement II addresses what is needed before withdrawal in order to preserve the right to sue again, namely the court's prior permission, while Statement III addresses what happens after withdrawal if that permission was never obtained, namely a bar on a fresh suit. The two statements describe the same scheme from opposite ends, one prospective and one consequential, and both are accurate reflections of Order XXIII Rule 1.
3. Statement IV compared with Statement III: Statement III is a firm, near-automatic bar once permission is absent, whereas Statement IV wrongly assumes the opposite extreme, that permission is granted merely for the asking. The rule instead makes the grant of leave conditional on the court's satisfaction as to a formal defect or other sufficient ground, so Statement IV overstates the plaintiff's entitlement and is false.

Comparing the pairs shows that Statements I, II and III form a consistent and accurate description of withdrawal and its consequences, while Statement IV is the outlier that does not survive scrutiny.

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