Trial Court cannot reject Order XXIII Rule 1 application based on factual errors regarding suit pleadings.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for property rights, later moving an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh due to "technical defects" regarding the chain of title.

The Trial Court rejected this application, observing that the plaintiff had failed to mention the sale deed dated 09.04.2015 in the original plaint.

The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, asserting that the sale deed was explicitly mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the plaint and that the Trial Court proceeded on a factual error.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a patent factual error in observing that the sale deed dated 09.04.2015 was not mentioned in the plaint.

2. Whether the application for withdrawal with liberty to file afresh ought to have been considered under the broader "sufficient grounds" provision of Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the CPC.

Specifically, Rule 1(3)(a) allows withdrawal with liberty if a suit must fail by reason of some "formal defect," while Rule 1(3)(b) provides the court discretion to grant such liberty for "other sufficient grounds".

The court also exercised its revisional jurisdiction to correct a "factual error" apparent on the face of the record.

The High Court found that the Trial Court’s order was predicated on a manifest factual error; a perusal of the plaint confirmed that the plaintiff had indeed referred to the purchase of the property on 09.04.2015.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that the Trial Court failed to evaluate the application under the "sufficient grounds" criteria of Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b), focusing instead only on the alleged omission of the sale deed.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the matter required a fresh adjudication to ensure the law was applied to the correct set of facts.

The Trial Court was specifically directed to decide the withdrawal application (Exhibit 32) before adjudicating any other pending applications, including the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to the respondents.