One of the cornerstones of civil justice is that disputes brought before courts must be adjudicated fairly and on the merits. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides litigants with the liberty to abandon or withdraw their suits under certain conditions. Yet, this procedural right raises a critical question: Does the filing of a withdrawal application or even a statement of compromise automatically terminate a suit, or must the court pass a formal order of dismissal for such withdrawal to attain finality?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Mangat Ram (deceased) through LRs v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CMPMO No. 33 of 2019), decided on 10 September 2025, emphatically held that until a formal order is passed by the trial court, the plaintiff retains the right to continue with the case, and courts cannot abdicate their duty to decide the matter on the merits.
This ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of Order XXIII CPC (withdrawal and compromise of suits) and the principle that courts exist to adjudicate disputes rather than avoid them on technicalities.
Factual Background
The dispute began when Mangat Ram, the plaintiff, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership and possession of the suit property. He also challenged the alienation of the property by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 27 August 2012, claiming it was illegal, void ab initio, and without lawful authority. Alongside the declaration, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from altering the nature and character of the property.
Application for Withdrawal
During the pendency of the suit, on 30 September 2016, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed, requesting that the matter be listed immediately and that the suit be dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the parties had arrived at a compromise. On the same day, the plaintiff made a statement on oath before the trial court, declaring:
“Stated that I do not want to pursue the suit as the matter has been compromised. Suit may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn.”
Subsequent Change of Mind
However, before the court could pass a formal dismissal order, the plaintiff changed his mind and informed the court that he no longer wished to withdraw and desired adjudication of the suit on the merits. In the meantime, Defendant No.2 filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to have the suit dismissed based on the plaintiff’s earlier statement and withdrawal request.
Trial Court’s Order
On 19 April 2018, the Civil Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh, allowed the defendant’s application and dismissed the suit as withdrawn. The trial court reasoned that once the plaintiff had made a statement on oath expressing his intent to withdraw, the withdrawal was complete, independent of any formal judicial order.
This prompted the plaintiff (through his legal representatives, since he had died during proceedings) to challenge the order before the High Court.
Issues Before the High Court
The case presented two primary issues:
- Whether withdrawal of a suit is complete merely upon filing of an application and recording of the plaintiff’s statement, even without a formal order of dismissal.
- Whether a plaintiff may revoke a withdrawal request and insist on adjudication of the suit on the merits if no formal dismissal order has yet been passed.
Judicial Reasoning by the High Court
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel of the Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered the judgment, overturning the trial court’s reasoning.
Necessity of a Formal Order
The Court clarified that Order XXIII CPC does not contemplate automatic withdrawal of a suit merely upon the plaintiff’s statement or application. Instead, a judicial order of dismissal must be passed for withdrawal to take legal effect:
“Judicial order has to be passed by the Court concerned on the basis of either the statement of the plaintiff or the application filed by the plaintiff, and it is only after a formal order is passed by the Court that the application or the statement comes into effect.”
Thus, until such an order is made, the plaintiff retains locus standi to continue the case.
Duty of the Court to Decide on Merits
The Court emphasised that a court of law is not in the same position as a defendant. While defendants may attempt to take advantage of technical lapses, courts cannot abdicate their judicial responsibility:
“If the plaintiff who had filed such an application subsequently wants the Court to decide the case on merit, the Court cannot shy away and shun its duty to decide the case on merit and hide behind such an application or statement made by the plaintiff.”
The court highlighted that its role is to adjudicate disputes on substantive justice rather than relying on incomplete procedural steps.
Plaintiff’s Liberty to Withdraw v. Court’s Control
While acknowledging that Order XXIII CPC grants the plaintiff the liberty to withdraw a suit at any stage, the Court noted that this liberty must be voluntarily exercised and can also be revoked before crystallisation into a formal order. Importantly, the Court rejected the trial judge’s view that withdrawal was automatic upon filing:
“This Cout does not agree with the observation of the learned Trial Court that dismissal is complete with the filing of the application.”
Practical Inconsistencies
The High Court also questioned the trial court’s conduct. If withdrawal was automatic upon filing, why did the trial court refer the matter to the Lok Adalat instead of closing the case immediately? This contradiction demonstrated the untenability of the trial court’s reasoning.
Final Order
Accordingly, the High Court:
- Quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 19 April 2018.
- Remanded the case to the trial court for adjudication on merits.
- Directed parties to appear before the trial court on 7 October 2025 for further proceedings.
Procedural Position on Withdrawal of Suits
Withdrawal of Suit under CPC
Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC: Allows a plaintiff to abandon a suit or part of a claim unconditionally.
Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC: Permits withdrawal based on compromise or settlement.
However, the court’s formal endorsement is mandatory; until then, the withdrawal has no binding effect.
Principles Emerging
- Withdrawal is not self-operative: A statement or application does not conclude proceedings without court approval.
- Plaintiff’s right is revocable: The plaintiff may change their mind before formal dismissal.
- Court’s duty prevails: Adjudication on merits is the default; technical withdrawals cannot override substantive justice.
- Adverse inference possible: Courts may draw negative inferences from the vacillating conduct of plaintiffs, but cannot dismiss suits summarily.
Conclusion
Himachal Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Mangat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) is a significant reaffirmation of judicial duty. It establishes that courts must decide cases on the merits unless and until a formal dismissal order is passed, and plaintiffs retain the right to continue their claims until that stage.
The ruling harmonises procedural law with substantive justice by ensuring that technical withdrawals cannot override the larger judicial obligation. It strengthens litigants’ confidence that courts will adjudicate disputes fairly, not dismiss them prematurely.
Ultimately, the decision embodies the principle that justice is not a matter of technical shortcuts but of careful, reasoned adjudication, and that courts exist to resolve disputes, not to avoid them.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams