Withdrawal of an appeal to pursue a specified remedy does not foreclose subsequent remedies available in law.

The Appellants had filed RFA(OS) Nos. 48/2025 and 58/2025 challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 55/2018.

On 10.10.2025, after hearing some arguments, the Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on the Appellants’ request, expressly for the purpose of enabling them to file appropriate applications before the learned Single Judge.

The Appellants thereafter filed review petitions before the learned Single Judge, which were dismissed by a common order dated 12.12.2025.

They subsequently instituted fresh appeals challenging the original judgment and preliminary decree as well as the review order.

A dispute arose regarding the effect of the withdrawal order dated 10.10.2025, leading the Appellants to seek clarification/modification under Section 151 CPC.

The Respondent contended that, in the absence of express liberty to institute fresh appeals, the original judgment had attained finality and the subsequent appeals were barred.

Whether the common order dated 10.10.2025, dismissing the Appeals as withdrawn to enable the Appellants to pursue an appropriate remedy before the learned Single Judge, was intended to constitute an unconditional abandonment of all further appellate remedies?

Whether the Court could clarify the intended effect of its earlier order under Section 151 CPC without adjudicating the maintainability, limitation, or merits of the fresh appeals?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to clarify the intended purport of its own earlier order.

It recognised that a statutory right of appeal is a substantive right, but may be waived or abandoned by the party entitled to exercise it.

Ordinarily, withdrawal of a proceeding without liberty to institute a fresh proceeding may preclude a subsequent challenge to the same order, as reflected in Upadhyay & Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 81, and Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa & Ors., (2012) 12 SCC 378.

However, the legal effect of withdrawal depends upon the terms and purpose of the order permitting withdrawal; a withdrawal undertaken for pursuing a specified remedy before another forum is not necessarily an unconditional abandonment of all further remedies.

The Court distinguished an unconditional withdrawal from the withdrawal recorded on 10.10.2025.

The earlier order did not merely state that the Appeals were withdrawn; it expressly recorded that withdrawal was sought to enable the Appellants to file appropriate applications before the learned Single Judge.

The Appellants acted consistently with that procedural course by filing review petitions, which were later dismissed.

In this context, the Court held that the omission to expressly state the position regarding subsequent remedies could not be treated as an intention to extinguish remedies that might otherwise be available in law.

At the same time, the Court limited its determination to clarifying the intended effect of its own order and did not decide whether the fresh appeals were maintainable, timely, or meritorious.

It was not intended, by itself, to foreclose any further remedy that might otherwise be available to the Appellants in accordance with law after disposal of those proceedings.

The Court expressly left open all questions concerning the maintainability, limitation, scope, and merits of the fresh appeals for determination by the appropriate Bench.

The applications were accordingly disposed of in those terms.