Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code stipulates that where the plaintiff withdraws from a suit without being given permission to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter or such part of claim he would be precluded from doing so.

8. The same principle has also been reiterated in the judgment reported as AZHAR HAYAT versus KARACHI PORT TRUST through Chairman and others (2016 SCMR 1916) in the following terms:- 

“6. We shall first deal with the legal objections taken by the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had filed C.P.No.D2602/2014 which was “not pressed” on 19th August 2014 and then filed the suit on 26th August 2014 (which was converted into a petition wherein the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was mentioned in paragraph 13 by stating that, “the same has been withdrawn by the Plaintiff as fresh cause of action has accrued to the Plaintiff.” The respondents had objected to the subsequent filing of the suit-petition as the requisite permission had not been obtained from the court when it was not pressed and dismissed. The impugned order took notice of this fact, but the learned judges did not non-suit the petitioner on this ground evident through he could have been because sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code stipulates that where the plaintiff withdraws from a suit without being given permission to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter or such part of claim he would be precluded from doing so.” 

Part of Judgment 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH MULTAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)
683-16

2017 LHC 1004