A plaintiff cannot abandon part of a claim without the consent of all co-plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 525/2008 applied under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to delete Item No. 3 from the suit schedule, submitting that the parties had settled the dispute concerning that item.

The trial court rejected the application after plaintiff No. 6 objected to the deletion. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 challenged that order in this writ petition.

1. Whether plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 could obtain deletion of Item No. 3 as part of the claim without the consent of plaintiff No. 6.

2. Whether the trial court’s rejection of the application disclosed an infirmity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXIII Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the consent of all plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (3).

The Court applied this statutory requirement to the application seeking deletion of a part of the suit claim.

Although plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 relied on a settlement concerning Item No. 3, plaintiff No. 6 objected to its deletion.

Because the application sought to remove part of the claim and all plaintiffs had not consented, the requirement under Order XXIII Rule 1(5) was not met. The High Court therefore found the trial court justified in rejecting the application and found no infirmity warranting interference.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.