IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 631 of 2007() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.370/2007 Dated 30/05/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/REVN.PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.PADINHAKKARA PUTHENVEETTIL NARAYANI @ CHINNU AMMA THRIKKADRI AMSOM AND DESOM, KARATTUKURUSSI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KARIYATTU PUTHENVEETTIL NANI AMMA, THRIKKADIRI AMSOM, KARATTUKURUSSI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SARADAMMA D/O.KARIYATTU PUTHENVEETTIL NANI AMMA, THRIKKADIRI AMSOM, KARATTUKURUSSI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. MEENAKSHIKUTTY AMMA, D/O.KARIYATTU PUTHENVEETTIL NANI AMMA, THRIKKADIRI AMSOM, KARATTUKURUSSI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. R3 BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 631 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T This R.P. is filed against the order of this court in CRP 370/07. The court below in an application for withdrawal of the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 passed an order whereby it permitted the petitioner to withdraw the suit at the same time refused to allow the prayer to withdraw the suit without prejudice to a file a fresh suit. So if this order is worked out what will happen is, the suit filed by the party automatically goes as withdrawn and he is permanently prevented from instituting a fresh suit. Or in other words, this order blocks any remedy to the party. 2. I have considered this matter and passed an order stating that the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam was absolutely correct in disallowing the prayer of the plaintiff to file a fresh suit after withdrawal of his case. But eventually I had dismissed the CRP but by the order which is binding on the party namely that he cannot continue to prosecute the present Crl. Appeal NO. 631 OF 2007 -:2:- suit in the present form even, because the court below has granted permission to withdraw the suit. I should have made it clear that he should have been given an opportunity to continue with the present suit in the present form. Therefore I modify the order passed in CRP 370/07 as follows. 1) The order of the subordinate judge, Ottapalam disallowing the prayer of the plaintiff to file a fresh suit after the withdrawal of his case is sustained. 2) The permission granted by the court to withdraw the suit is varied and set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to proceed with the case which he has instituted in accordance with law. The R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-