[2025:RJ-JP:45392] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17162/2025 Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Shri Shivcharan Lal Jain, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 21, Scheme No. 10, Alwar Tehsil District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Royal Floor Welfare Society, Registered Address 1, Ashok Vihar, Karamchari Colony, Alwar Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Laxmikant Sharma 2. Siddharth Prime Foods Private Limited, Registered Office 316, Basant Vihar, Alwar Through Promoter Siddharth Benewal S/o Shri Jagdish Beniwal Promoter And Authorized Officer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar, in Civil Suit No.34/22/19, titled as ‘Royal Floor Vs. Ashok Kumar’, whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has committed a serious error in allowing the relinquishment of a part of the claim by the respondent/plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:45392] (2 of 4) [CW-17162/2025] He submits that such relinquishment is contrary to the mandate of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/plaintiffs have not paid the Court fee in respect of the said property, and a specific issue has been framed in this respect; therefore, the learned Court below erred in allowing such relinquishment. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 may kindly be set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 27.08.2025, it is evident that the respondent/plaintiff had moved an application seeking abandonment of a part of the claim, as enumerated in the application dated 15.02.2025, with the following prayer :- " यह अब वादी ववादत जायदाद े नगर वास ास अलवर ारा ीृ त ान दनां 19.05.2017 े ाउ ोर म द ा!ये गये 3 बै#े$ हॉल, ए ॉफी ॉप, ए चन ु ल रबा 287.6 +वायर मीटर े संबंध म अपने .ेम ो /ेस नही रना चाहता वदड1 ा रना चाहता है तथा बाया ववादत 3ल े संबंध म अपने दावे ो जारी रखना चाहता है। अतः /ाथ!ना प7 पे रे नवेदन है /ाथ!ना प7 वादी ीार या जार वादी ो उपरो8 व9!त 3 बै:े $ हॉल, ए ॉफी ॉप, ए चन ु ल रबा 287.6 +वायर मीटर ी हद त अपना .ेम वदड1 ा रने ी इजाजत /दान ी जावे। अत ृ पा होगी।" 5. The said application was allowed by the Court below while considering the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, which permits the plaintiff to abandon his suit as against all or any of the defendants, or abandon a part of his claim at any stage after the institution of the suit. 6. In the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, permitting such partial abandonment of the claim as specified in the [2025:RJ-JP:45392] (3 of 4) [CW-17162/2025] application without granting any leave to file a fresh suit. Further, merely because an issue of Court fees was framed, that in itself would not be considered as a legal impediment in allowing the said application. Therefore, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. Thus, on a plain reading of the impugned order, it does not appear that the learned Court below has committed any jurisdictional error or perversity while passing the same. Moreover, the petitioner-defendant has failed to point out how he is aggrieved by the impugned order and what prejudice/injury would be caused to the petitioner if the said abandonment of the claim is allowed. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed a frivolous writ petition. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm K. B. Bass and Co.1 has elucidated on the mandate of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, and has held as under: "2.......The language of Order 23, Rule 1, sub-Rule (1), C. P. C., gives an unqualified right to a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit and if no permission to file a fresh suit is sought under sub-rule (2) of that Rule, the plaintiff becomes liable for such costs as the Court may award and becomes precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of that subject-matter under sub-Rule (3) of that Rule There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which requires the Court to refuse permission to withdraw the suit in such circumstances and to compel the plaintiff to proceed with it......." 9. Similarly, in Smt. Kanta Devi & Ors Vs. Shri Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.2 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: "10. Having considered facts and circumstances of present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that plaintiffs have an absolute right to withdraw/ abandon their suit as a whole or in part, at any time after institution of the suit and defendants..." 1 1968 AIR(SC) 111 2 2023 1 WLC 541 [2025:RJ-JP:45392] (4 of 4) [CW-17162/2025] 10. Thus, it is now a well settled law that the plaintiff has an unfettered/absolute right to withdraw/abandon part of their claim in the plaint under Order 23 Rule 1 without seeking any leave to file a fresh suit, as the consequence of rejecting the same would tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to refrain from abandoning any part of the claim made initially in the plaint and mandating him to press a case for which he does not wish to obtain a decree, which would be ex facie illegal and against the mandate of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC. 11. In view of the considerations and observations made above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 27.08.2025. The present petition, having no legal force, is devoid of merit and frivolous. The same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today. 12. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to deposit the cost amount within the stipulated time, the registry is directed to relist the matter for passing appropriate orders for such non-compliance. 13. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/15