Facts
The appellant brought a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Source reference: p. 5At the hearing, the appellant’s counsel stated that a memo seeking withdrawal had been filed and signed by the appellant’s GPA holder. The GPA holder appeared in person and was identified by counsel; counsel confirmed that withdrawal was a conscious decision and that the appellant would not seek review or modification of the resulting order.
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the appellant’s request to withdraw the appeal should be accepted.
Source reference: p. 62. Whether any pending interlocutory applications required separate disposal following withdrawal of the appeal.
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Source reference: p. 5The judgment does not identify or discuss a statutory provision governing withdrawal of the appeal, cite precedent, or state a broader legal test for accepting withdrawal.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court recorded the withdrawal memo and counsel’s confirmation that the appellant had made a conscious decision to withdraw.
Source reference: p. 6The GPA holder’s appearance and identification by counsel further accompanied the request. On that basis, the Court accepted the withdrawal; it did not determine the merits of the underlying dispute.
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The Court also disposed of all pending interlocutory applications, if any.
Source reference: pp. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
SRI ARUN DEVARU BHATvsSRI S JAYSHANKAR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
