In Brief
A dispute arose over ownership and possession of agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff sued for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. The parties later settled, and the plaintiff withdrew the suit with the trial court's permission, subject to payment of costs. The High Court, in a writ petition by the defendant, set aside this order and directed the plaintiff to put the defendant in possession. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and revision court were correct: a plaintiff has an unconditional right to withdraw a suit under procedural law, and the defendant's only remedy is to claim costs. The High Court erred by examining injunction orders and directing possession—matters outside the scope of reviewing a withdrawal order. The Court restored the lower courts' orders.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.