Madras High Court· 07 August 2026
Does the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 govern an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall a withdrawal order?
A.Senthil Murugan v. Nirmal Kumar
CRP.4258/2026 · 2026:MHC:3298 · CRP.Nos.4258 & 4259 of 2026
Coram: Justice P.B.Balaji
Answer
Yes. Once an application is permissible or maintainable under Section 151, limitation is in terms of Article 137, that is three years from the date on which the right accrues to the applicant. A trial Court therefore fell in error in dismissing a condone delay application on the ground that sufficient cause under Section 5 was not shown, because the question of delay cannot arise in the first place where the inherent powers of the Court have been invoked.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.151 — Order VIII Rule 6A — Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137 — s.5 — Inherent powers — Recall of order permitting withdrawal of suit — Counter claim —
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.151 — Recall of withdrawal of suit — No specific provision in the Code —
Held: The absence of a specific provision to recall an order withdrawing a suit does not leave the plaintiff remediless; the Court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 151, procedure being only a handmaid of justice. (¶16)
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 137 — Application under Section 151 — Three years from the date the right accrues —
Held further: Once such an application is maintainable under Section 151, limitation is in terms of the residuary Article 137, three years from the date on which the right accrues to the applicant, and no sufficient cause under Section 5 need be shown. (¶17, 19)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.151 — Inherent power — Conduct of the applicant comes into play —
Held further: The power under Section 151 is unbridled but cannot be exercised for the mere asking, the conduct of the applicant coming into play; a withdrawal made voluntarily and consciously to gain mutation of revenue records is not a mistake. Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. (¶28, 29)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 17The Hon’ble Supreme Court, even in Rajendra Prasad Gupta’ case, held that there is no express bar for filing an application for withdrawal of a withdrawal application. In such view of the matter, the application taken out under Section 151 of CPC cannot be found fault with. Once an application is permissible or maintainable under Section 151 of CPC, then as held by this Court in Karuppa Gounder’s case, limitation would be in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act i.e three years from the date on which the right accrues to the applicant.
Paragraph 18Though it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the condonation of delay 1431 days sought for is itself beyond the period of three years, I am unable to countenance the said submission, since the petitioner was agitating his rights in the writ appeal and the Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to take out an application to restore the suit. The said judgment was passed on 09.09.2025 and though no immediate steps were taken by the petitioner, admittedly applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the applications having been filed within a period of three years from 09.09.2025, I am unable to reject the application on the ground of delay or limitation. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/08/2026 04:17:14 pm )
Paragraph 19The trial Court therefore clearly fell in error in dismissing the condone delay application, on the ground that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause when the petitioner had only invoked Section 151 of CPC and the question of delay cannot arise in the first place, especially when the application was filed within three years from the date of liberty granted by the Division Bench, on which date, a right accrued to the petitioner to move the application in question. However, merely because I have held that the question of delay or even latches cannot be put against the petitioner, when the petitioner invoked the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner has to make out a strong case for recalling the order permitting him to withdraw the suit.
Acts & Sections
s.151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Article 137 Limitation Act, 1963s.5 Limitation Act, 1963Order VIII Rule 6A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of A.Senthil Murugan v. Nirmal Kumar — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →