Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the matter with liberty to raise the same grounds in an appeal against the final judgment of the trial court, should it go against them.
The Court recorded the memo of withdrawal submitted by the petitioners’ counsel and permitted withdrawal of the writ petition, granting liberty as requested.
Justice Shetty observed:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to urge the grounds raised in this petition in the appeal in the event the judgment in O.S. No. 3290/2011 is passed adverse to the interest of the petitioners. The said memo and submission are placed on record. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.”
This succinct order reflects the Court’s adherence to the principle of judicial restraint, ensuring that interlocutory challenges do not preempt the trial court’s adjudication.
Facts
The petitioners, a group of family members involved in a civil dispute before the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43), had filed the present writ petition under Article 227, challenging an interlocutory order dated 19 November 2020 passed in O.S. No. 3290/2011.
The impugned order related to I.A. No. XIII, which the petitioners contended caused prejudice to their position in the ongoing suit concerning partition and property rights among family members.
While the trial proceedings were still pending, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, praying to set aside the trial court’s order and to direct reconsideration of the application.
However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioners’ counsel submitted a memo seeking withdrawal of the writ petition, with a request that liberty be granted to raise the same grounds at the appellate stage, if the trial court’s eventual judgment went against them.
The respondents’ counsel did not oppose the withdrawal, and the Court accordingly recorded the memo and allowed withdrawal with liberty.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners could seek withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to raise identical grounds in a subsequent appeal.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its discretion under Article 227 to interfere at an interlocutory stage in an ongoing civil proceeding.
- Whether such withdrawal affects the petitioners’ right to contest adverse findings in a future appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners, represented through counsel, contended that the interlocutory order of the trial court had caused serious prejudice to their interests in the pending civil suit. They invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to challenge the same, asserting that the trial court had exceeded its authority in passing the impugned order.
However, after reassessing the procedural circumstances, the petitioners’ counsel moved a memo to withdraw the writ petition. The counsel stated that since the main suit (O.S. No. 3290/2011) was still under adjudication, and a final judgment was yet to be delivered, it would be premature to pursue the writ at this stage.
The petitioners requested that the High Court allow withdrawal but grant them explicit liberty to raise all legal grounds afresh in the event the trial court’s final judgment went adverse. The counsel further submitted that this would prevent multiplicity of proceedings while preserving the petitioners’ substantive rights to appeal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, represented by two separate counsels, did not oppose the withdrawal. They submitted that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, particularly where the trial court proceedings are still in progress.
The respondents supported the view that the petitioners’ request for liberty was consistent with judicial prudence, as it would allow all issues to be finally decided within the framework of the civil appeal rather than through fragmented writ proceedings.
They therefore had no objection to the memo being accepted, provided it did not prejudice the respondents’ rights in the ongoing trial.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of Article 227, which empowers the High Court to supervise subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure proper exercise of jurisdiction and adherence to the law. However, this power is discretionary and corrective, not appellate.
Justice Shetty followed the well-established principle that High Courts should refrain from interfering at interlocutory stages unless there is gross injustice or jurisdictional error. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s observations in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, where it was held that Article 227 jurisdiction should not substitute for an appeal or revision.
By allowing the petitioners to withdraw with liberty, the Court safeguarded their right to appeal, aligning with the procedural flexibility recognized under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, which allows withdrawal with liberty to re-agitate the matter in appropriate circumstances.
Thus, the Court’s order reflects the balance between judicial efficiency and fairness—preventing premature intervention while preserving litigants’ substantive rights.
Precedent Analysis
- Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 — The Supreme Court clarified that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to circumvent normal appellate remedies. Applied here to justify the Court’s restraint.
- Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 — Laid down the distinction between revisional and supervisory jurisdictions; cited for its relevance on permissible intervention.
- Abdul Razak v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle, (2010) 2 SCC 432 — Recognized that withdrawal with liberty to re-agitate claims is a permissible procedural course that avoids multiplicity of proceedings.
These precedents collectively underpin the Court’s reasoning that judicial economy and litigant fairness must coexist within the framework of Article 227 discretion.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Shetty recorded that the petitioners’ counsel had filed a memo of withdrawal seeking liberty to raise the same contentions in an appeal if the trial court’s final decision went against them.
The Court held that such withdrawal did not prejudice any party and was a procedurally sound step, since the trial court’s judgment was yet to be rendered.
By dismissing the petition as withdrawn with liberty, the Court avoided a piecemeal adjudication of issues and ensured that the entire matter could be examined comprehensively at the appellate stage.
The succinctness of the order reflects the High Court’s minimalist and judicious approach, preserving judicial time while protecting litigants’ rights.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their writ petition, granting them liberty to raise identical grounds in a future appeal if the trial court’s final judgment were to be unfavorable.
Justice Shetty’s order exemplifies judicial restraint, reaffirming that High Courts should not intervene prematurely in trial proceedings, particularly when an effective appellate remedy exists.
“The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.”
This brief yet decisive order underscores that procedural prudence and efficiency are vital to maintaining judicial discipline within the appellate hierarchy.
Implications
The decision reinforces key procedural principles:
- High Courts must avoid interfering at interlocutory stages under Article 227 unless grave injustice is shown.
- Withdrawal with liberty is a valid procedural mechanism preserving litigants’ right to appeal.
- Litigants should not bypass the ordinary appellate process by prematurely invoking writ jurisdiction.
This judgment serves as a reminder that Article 227 powers are supervisory, not substitutive, and are meant to ensure systemic fairness, not to interrupt ongoing trials.
Judgments Referred
- Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 — Clarified limits of Article 227 jurisdiction.
- Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 — Distinguished between revisional and supervisory powers.
- Abdul Razak v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle, (2010) 2 SCC 432 — Upheld the principle of withdrawal with liberty as a valid procedural safeguard.
FAQs
Q1. Can a writ petition be withdrawn with liberty to raise the same issues later?
Yes. The Court may permit withdrawal with liberty to raise identical grounds in an appeal if the trial court’s final decision is adverse.
Q2. What is the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution?
It grants High Courts supervisory control over subordinate courts to ensure proper exercise of jurisdiction, but not to reappreciate facts or act as an appellate authority.
Q3. Why did the Court not decide the matter on merits?
Because the trial proceedings were still pending; premature adjudication could have interfered with the lower court’s process.
