1991 (8) TMI 346 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the suit for injunction to restrain defendants from taking steps under Revenue Recovery Act is maintainable.
2. Whether the suit is barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4), C.P.C.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction to prevent the defendants from recovering an alleged due amount under an agricultural loan. The plaintiff denied liability, citing discharge and limitation as defenses. The defendants claimed the amount was due and sent a requisition for recovery. The trial court and the Sub Judge dismissed the suit. The High Court noted that the requisition under the Revenue Recovery Act was issued well after the limitation period had expired. The court rejected the argument that the limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Citing a precedent, the court emphasized that a debt legally due can be enforced through legal process, and if barred by law, it cannot be considered due. However, the suit was dismissed under Order XXIII, Rule 1(4), C.P.C.

Issue 2:
The plaintiff had previously filed a suit for injunction against the same defendant, which was dismissed as not pressed. The court analyzed the applicability of Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. The court explained the provisions of Rule 1, which allow a plaintiff to abandon a suit or part of a claim with court permission. The court highlighted that if a suit is withdrawn without permission, the plaintiff is precluded from filing a fresh suit on the same subject matter. However, in this case, the second suit was pending when the first suit was dismissed. Citing legal precedents, the court concluded that Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. does not bar a suit already instituted before another suit is abandoned or dismissed. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff was wrongly denied relief, set aside the impugned judgment, and decreed in favor of the plaintiff in the Second Appeal, allowing the appeal without costs.