Madras High Court· 07 August 2026

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, is an application under Section 151 to recall an order permitting withdrawal of a suit maintainable?

A.Senthil Murugan v. Nirmal Kumar

CRP.4258/2026 · 2026:MHC:3298 · CRP.Nos.4258 & 4259 of 2026
Coram: Justice P.B.Balaji

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. There is no provision under CPC providing for such recall, but procedure is only a handmaid of justice and it is not necessary that the Code should encompass all scenarios; the Court is entitled to fall back on its inherent powers under Section 151 in order to do justice to the parties. There is also no express bar for filing an application for withdrawal of a withdrawal application.

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 16This now takes me to the question of limitation. Admittedly, there is no provision under CPC, providing for such recall of an order permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. However, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jet Ply Wood’s case, merely because, there is no specific provision permitting recalling of an order withdrawing a suit, the Court is entitled to invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC and permit recalling of such an order. It is settled legal position that procedure is only a handmaid of justice and it is therefore not necessary that the Code should encompass all scenarios. Even in cases where no specific provision is found or available https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/08/2026 04:17:14 pm ) in the Code, yet the Court is entitled to fall back on its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC, in order to do justice to the parties.

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.

Acts & Sections

s.151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Article 137 Limitation Act, 1963s.5 Limitation Act, 1963Order VIII Rule 6A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections