Facts
The petitioners’ original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was withdrawn after their counsel identified errors in it and orally sought withdrawal. The Tribunal recorded the withdrawal, but counsel had not asked for liberty to file a fresh application.
Source reference: para. 3–5The petitioners then filed Original Application No. 378 of 2026, which the Tribunal held was not maintainable because liberty to refile had not been granted.
Source reference: para. 3–5They challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 23 March 2026 before the High Court
Source reference: para. 3–5Issues
1. Whether the Tribunal’s order refusing to entertain the fresh Original Application should be set aside where the earlier application was withdrawn because of errors, but counsel did not seek express liberty to refile
Source reference: para. 4–62. Whether counsel’s failure to request such liberty should prevent the litigants from pursuing their claim in a fresh application
Source reference: para. 6–9Law Applied
The Court referred to Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning withdrawal of suits, and specifically to the provision allowing a court, where a suit is liable to fail because of a formal defect, to permit withdrawal with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter.
Source reference: para. 7The Court also applied the principle that a lawyer’s mistake should not, in the circumstances of the case, deprive a litigant of a valuable right to pursue a legal claim. No precedent was cited.
Source reference: para. 6, 9Reasoning
The Court accepted that the first application was withdrawn because counsel had identified errors and taken responsibility for them. Although counsel failed to request express permission to file a fresh application, the Court considered that denying the petitioners the opportunity to pursue their claim would cause them to lose a valuable right because of counsel’s mistake.
Source reference: para. 6, 8–9It therefore adopted a pragmatic and lenient approach and set aside the Tribunal’s order.
Source reference: para. 10Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 23 March 2026.
Original Application No. 378 of 2026 was restored to the Tribunal’s file, and the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14 October 2026.
Source reference: para. 10–12Original Court PDF
TAPAN KUMAR DEY AND ANRvsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
