Case Law Details
Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
It is trite law that whenever a litigant invokes a particular remedy available under a Statute, then the authority before whom the lis is preferred and pending, is ordinarily duty bound to decide the same on merits. It is also settled in law that the aggrieved person who initiates lis has a right to withdraw the same before it is finally decided. This right of withdrawal is absolute but it is subject to the fact that withdrawal can be declined if there are cogent reasons.
In the instant case, petitioners sought to expressly withdraw the revision petition filed u/S 264 of the Act. This prayer for withdrawal was made when the revision petition u/S 264 of the Act was pending. The revisional authority rejected the prayer of withdrawal by following the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Simplex Enterprises and others (supra).
The said judgment in Simplex Enterprises and others (supra) is based on a set of facts which are distinct as compared to the factual matrix attending herein. The case before the Bombay High Court was a case where no such prayer for withdrawal was made for the revision petition and therefore the said case is of no avail to the Revenue.
In view of above discussion, what comes out loud and clear is that by not allowing the prayer for withdrawal and proceeding to decide the revision on merits, the revisional authority wrongly exercised jurisdiction vested in it.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
