Narendra Sharma

Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA V. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. {(2011) 2 SCC 705 = 2011 (1) SCALE 469; Civil Appeal No(s). 984 of 2006-Decided on 12-01-2011} has held as follows.

“2. ………….Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted. There is no express bar in filing an application for withdrawal of the withdrawal application. In Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey, ILR 5 All 163 (FB) (1882), Mr. Justice Mahmood, the celebrated Judge of the Allahabad High Court, observed :- 

“Courts are not to act upon the principle that every procedure is to be taken as prohibited unless it is expressly provided for by the Code, but on the converse principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by the law. As a matter of general principle prohibition cannot be presumed.”

The above view was followed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain Saxena Vs. Bhim Sen &others, AIR 1966 Allahabad 84 FB, and we agree with this view.

3. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the application praying for withdrawal of the withdrawal application was maintainable.”

Note: The views expressed are my personal and a view point only.

(Author:  Author can be reached at Mobile-9229574214, E-mail: [email protected])

Click Here to Read Other Articles of the Author

More Under Corporate Law


  1. Narendra Sharma says:

    Dear CA Sandeep Kanoi,

    THIS HAS REFERENCE TO YOUR COMMENT dated May 11, 2011 At 4:53 Pm

    “Thanks again. I will mail you one more email is so that email do not get bounced.”

    Kindly give your ALERNATE E-MAIL.

    Narendra Sharma,

  2. Narendra Sharma says:

    Dear CA Sandeep Kanoi,

    (Reply e-mail for -Re: Comments- sent by me to you on 10.05.2011 has bounced SEVERAL TIMES, hence I have posted it here)

    Thank you for forwarding the mail for my information and comments.

    QUERY- what is contribution of author? – where are views?

    REPLY- (1) I have preferred not to add my views, as I do not have command over PROCEDURAL LAW. The sole purpose was to highlight the important legal principle hidden u/s 151 of CPC, so that it may not escape attention of the learned readers for want of time.

    (2) For example, the important SC ruling highlighted in the Article ‘What, If A Point Was Argued, But Not Dealt With In The Judgment’ had escaped attention of numerous learned readers, who personally thanked me for the same, as it is of great practical use in their day to day working in the Court.

    (3) I have no regret for the same.(as evident from the level of my other Articles)

    (4) Any way, it is your prerogative to approve an article for publication or not. There is no issue in this regard at all.

    (5) Kindly do not hesitate to take such comments to my notice in future also, as I certainly try to learn some lesson.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021