ORDER
K.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed a petition for withdrawal of the suit for damages for defamation.
2. The plaintiff is the Chief Minister of Orissa. Defendant No. 1 are the proprietors of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., publishing the Illustrated Weekly of India (for short ‘Illustrated Weekly’) from Bombay having a wide circulation throughout the country, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 serve as Editor and Special Correspondent thereof. Defendant No. 4 is a former Member of Parliament. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 published two articles in the Illustrated Weekly in the issues 18-24 May, 1986 and 3-9 August, 1986 respectively. The first article was captioned “Shocking : The Strange Escapades Of J. B. Patnaik, Orissa Chief Minister”. In this article, scandalous allegations relating to the perverted sexual character of the plaintiff were made. Also were published therein the details of an interview which defendant No. 3 had with defendant No. 4 in a box item under the heading “He Is A Pervert”. The statements said to have been made by the latter in the interview with the former were alleged to be grossly abusive depicting the plaintiff as a sex monster. In the second article, under the caption, “Why Is J. B. Patnaik Being Allowed To Gag The Press?”, affidavits of two persons describing the plaintiffs immoral and perverted sexual character were further published. The plaintiff felt greatly outraged, because he held a high office and found that his character was being assassinated on account of a deep rooted conspiracy so as to oust him not only from the office of Chief Minister, but also from the field of politics. He also felt deep mental agony along with his family members. Therefore, alleging that both the articles contained false and grossly defamatory allegations aimed at character assassination by political rivals, he instituted the suit for damages to the tune of rupees one crore against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 4 filed separate written statements and averred therein that the entire story of sexual perversion of the plaintiff was based on authentic information which came to their hands and they believed the same to be true. They took the plea of justification for publication of the two articles and denied their liability for damages.
4. During pendency of the suit, on the miscellaneous applications of the plaintiff, mainly contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 3, many significant orders of far-reaching consequences were passed by this Court against some of which the latter approached the Supreme Court direct and against many others, they first preferred Letters Patent Appeals in this Court and after dismissal again approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. Two of such petitions are S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 800-01 of 1989. During hearing of the said petitions, the Supreme Court passed the following order on 9-8-1989:–
“These petitions were called on for further hearing today. Coram and appearance as before.
Counsel for both the parties stated that the matter has been compromised and the Court passed the following order:–
There will be an order in terms of the Minutes tendered by counsel and marked as ‘X’ for identification. Learned counsel for both the parties state that it is preferable that the text of the apology should not be made public till the apology is published, as per the agreement between the parties, in the Illustrated Weekly of India in the issue of 27th August — 2nd Sept., 1989. In view of this we direct that Annexure “A” to the minutes which contains a draft of the apology shall be kept in a sealed cover in the Registry and the said cover will be opened only after publication of the apology in the Illustrated Weekly. We understand that suit No. OS 1/87 pending in the High Court of Orissa has been placed for hearing on 10th August, 1989 both parties agree that they will request for an adjournment till 28th August, 1989 and we have no
doubt that the High Court will accede to that request, in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties.
List the matter after four weeks for directions.”
In pursuance of the understanding reflected in the above order, the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 through their learned counsel took steps in this Court by filing petitions. On 26-8-1989 in a petition registered as Misc. Case No. 83 of 1989 defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stated that pursuant to the compromise made in the Supreme Court, the aforesaid defendants have published apology in the Illustrated Weekly dated August, 27 –September 2, 1989 as agreed. They enclosed a copy of the Illustrated Weekly along with the petition and prayed that order of withdrawal of the suit against the aforesaid defendants may be passed.
5. On 19-8-1989 defendant No. 4 through his counsel filed a memorandum stating therein that he learnt that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1,2 and 3 have compromised the suit, because the latter have tendered apology and have published the same. He does not went to make any compromise with the plaintiff and shall continue the suit and support his defence. On 31-8-1989 he filed an objection stating therein that the conduct of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who had tendered and published apology is illegal, contrary to law and intended to harass defendant No. 4. The facts stated in the two articles were not politically motivated. In fact, the compromise is intended to help the plaintiff so that he will escape from the consequences of the allegations made against him. The compromise is prejudicial to his interest and against public policy. Therefore, the compromise cannot be effected and recorded and the suit cannot be permitted to be withdrawn.
6. On 31-8-1989 the plaintiff filed a petition registered as Misc. Case No. 85 of 1989 stating therein all the events which took place during hearing of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 800-01 of 1989 in the Supreme Court leading to the settlement/compromise. It was further stated that in view of the apology
tendered by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and published in the issue of the Illustrated Weekly dated August 27 — September 2, 1989 and the other conditions of the settlement/compromise having been fulfilled, the plaintiff withdraws the suit against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. With regard to defendant No. 4 it is stated that that he was directed by this Court to furnish further and better particulars and as he did not, do so, by order dated 14-7-1988 this Court struck out his defence made in the written statement and as a consequence he was debarred from adducing any evidence, oral or documentary, relating to such defence. Defendant No. 4 did not prefer any appeal against the aforesaid order which has become final and binding on him. So, even if the suit proceeds against him, he stands debarred from adducing any evidence, oral or documentary, in support of his defence. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 while tendering and publishing the apology stated that they subsequently found that the information on the basis of which the two articles were written and published were not true and was politically motivated. They have expressed regret for the damage done to the plaintiff’s reputation. In view of the above assertion, on their own admission, all the facts contained in the articles published in the two issues of the Illustrated Weekly were not true and were politically motivated. This assertion of fact includes those contained in the interview of defendant No. 3 with defendant No. 4 and published in the box item of the first issue. In other words, the facts of the interview published in the box item were not true and politically motivated. It is further averred that since the purpose of the plaintiff in filling the suit has been achieved, it would be sheer wastage of time of the Court and the parties to continue the suit against defendant No. 4. The plaintiff thus withdraws the suit against defendant No. 4 also.
7. On 5-9-1989 defendant No. 4 filed a petition for adjournment of the suit stating therein that he is now in the United States of America and wants to lead evidence in support of his objection to be filed in detail to the petition of the plaintiff dated 31-8-1989, because wild allegations against him have
made therein by the plaintiff.
8. Defendant No. 4 also filed a further objection consisting of 19 pages stating therein that no compromise can be recorded according to Order 23, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘Code’), because the ingredients contained therein have not been satisfied. The plaintiff has prayed for a consent decree in his favour in terms of the purported compromise and so the petition is not one for withdrawal of the suit simpliciter according to Order 23, Rule 1, of the Code. The apology published by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is mala fide. The basis of the argument/compromise is fraudulent and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The apology tendered by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is prejudicial to his interest. In the objection, defendant No. 4 introduced 3 paragraphs which are quoted below making certain allegations against the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. According to him, the sum and substance of the allegations is that the apology has been tendered because of favours conferred for allotment of land, withdrawal of criminal cases and threat of investigation by the revenue authorities in financial matters of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
“14. That the Defendant No. 4 learnt from local news-papers, which he verily believes to be true, that other conditions forming the subject matter of the agreement between the plaintiff and the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are unwritten one and it has been settled that on Defendants No. 1 to 3 agreeing to tender apology, the plaintiff would use his position as Chief Minister to procure for those Defendants a benefit of allotment of 12 acres of prime land in the city of Bhubaneswar for allotment from State Government land, so that the Defendant No. 1 would publish magazines, news-papers and journals from Bhubaneswar for penetrating the eastern region of India and also would earn a huge financial benefit from real estate. If this being the unwritten condition of the agreement which is pending finalisation before the State Government, the agreement/compromise is void being opposed to public policy.
15. That another unwritten condition of the agreement, as per information of the Defendant No. 4, is that the plaintiff would use his influence as Chief Minister for withdrawal of criminal prosecution launched against the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by the plaintiffs supporters and the Crime Branch of Police of the State. This term/condition of the agreement being opposed to public policy compromise cannot be recorded as prayed for.
19. That the Defendant No. 4 understands on enquiry which he verily believes to be true that the plaintiff having exacted tremendous pressure on the Revenue Authorities at New Delhi, such authority held out threat against the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 that unless they compromise the Suit their financial matters should be investigated by Revenue Authorities. Thus the apology in question having been obtained by undue influence and coercion such agreement is illegal, under explanation to Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
The affidavit of the objection has been sworn by Dr. Radha Debi, wife of defendant No. 4. She stated therein that the facts stated in the objection were true to her knowledge based upon information and instruction received from defendant No. 4 over telephone from New York. In support of the allegations, no materials or documents were annexed.
9. In an affidavit filed on 6-9-1989 the plaintiff has denied all the averments made in the objection and has stated that defendant No. 4 has no locus standi to challenge the withdrawal of the suit.
10. On 7-9-1989 the plaintiff filed a petition (registered as Misc. Case No. 88 of 1989) purported to be one under Section 151 of the Code. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 19 of the objection were again quoted and it was stated that they are irrelevant, false, libellous and scandalous. Each of the allegations has been denied stating that there has never been any unwritten agreement for allotment of 12 acres of land in favour of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, nor was there any unwritten condition for withdrawal of criminal cases now pending against them. The allegation of the plaintiff exerting influence on the revenue authorities
has also been stoutly denied. The affidavit on behalf of defendant No. 4 has not also been in accordance with Order 19, Rule 3, of the Code. Therefore, a prayer has been made for expunction of paragraphs 14, 15 and 19 of the objection of defendant No. 4 dated 5-9-1989. Two xerox copies of news extracts dated 28-8-1989 and 30-8-1989 published in newspaper, named, ‘Kurukhetra’, have been enclosed. In the earlier publication it was reported that there is a proposal to lease out 10 to 12 acres of Government land at Bhubaneswar in favour of defendant No. 1 at a low price which is the reason behind the apology. In the publication dated 30-8-1989 the denial on behalf of a spokesman of the Government has been published.
11. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in a separate affidavit have denied the allegations made by defendant No. 4 in his objection dated 5-9-1989. They have enclosed a telex message by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stating :
“…..We strongly deny the various allegations contained therein in support of the objection that the petition of the plaintiff Dt. 31st August, 1989. In particular we deny that the proposed withdrawal of the suit is unaxx unlawful, for the reasons stated in the objection or for any other reason, that the Illustrated Weekly of India’s circulation increased and had acquired large advertisements due to the impugned Article, that there is any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant contrary to Law, that the plaintiff had agreed to use his position as Chief Minister to procure for the defendant benefit of allotment of 12 acres of Prime Land in the city of Bhubaneswar or any other land.”
12. Defendant No. 4 has filed an objection to the plaintiffs petition stating therein that the allegations in the earlier objection as quoted cannot be expugned according to Order 6, Rule 16, of the Code, because the allegations have not been made in a ‘pleading’. Further, none of the averments is irrelevant, unwarranted, vexatious, scandalous or libellous. A further affidavit has also been filed by defendant No. 4 stating therein that the affidavit sworn by his wife Dr. Radha Debi on 5-9-1989 was according to information and
instruction given by him which are true to his knowledge and based on information which
he believed to be true.
13. In view of the above controversy raised, it is for consideration whether the allegations made by defendant No. 4 in paragraphs 14, 15 and 19 of the objection dated 5-9-1989 are to be treated as irrelevant and scandalous not at all germane to the issue.
14. To tell the plaintiff who holds the office of the Chief Minister of the State and defendant No. 1 which is a vast literary and commercial organisation and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are responsible citizens that the compromise entered into between them out of Court so as to facilitate withdrawal of the suit was on account of a shady deal which is behind the transaction is a very serious matter. The allegations on a bare reading appear to be scandalous. In support of such serious allegation, defendant No. 4 has not placed a single record or document. He has not produced the newspaper report on which his information was based. He did not disclose the source of his information as to how he came to know of the shady deal or transaction behind the scene for compelling defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to make a compromise and express and publish their apology. It is highly dangerous for a responsible citizen to make a scandalous and libellous allegation against another without there being any contemporaneous documentary support. Freedom of speech and expression cannot be abused in this manner. Fair criticism based on documents is one thing, and scandalous and libellous allegation based on no material is completely different. Apart from the above, these allegations are not at all relevant and foreign to the point at issue, namely, whether in view of the publication of the apology, the plaintiff shall be permitted to withdraw the suit or not.
15. Order 6, Rule 16, so far it is relevant, is quoted below for easy reference:–
“16. Striking out pleadings.– The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or
XXXXX
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.”
According to Mr. Patnaik, even if the objection may not be a pleading, yet the withdrawal proceeding is a proceeding in a suit and so under the provision of Order 6, Rule 16, the Court may strike out the unnecessary and scandalous matters. Mr. Pal, however, disputed the above contention and urged that the above provision is only applicable to pleadings and not to other proceedings. In support of his contention, Mr. Patnaik cited, AIR 1961 Madras 247; Kochadai Naidu v. Nagayasami Naidu, AIR 1966 SC 1888; Ram Chandra Aggrawal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and AIR 1966 Madras 161, Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Ltd. v. C. Hariprasad. In the earlier two cases, the expression ‘proceeding’ has been explained. It is not necessary to consider these decisions, because the contention of Mr. Patnaik finds support otherwise from AIR 1966 Mad 161 (supra) where it has been held as follows (at p. 162 of AIR) :–
“It is clear from Mullah’s Civil Procedure Code, 12th Edn. Vol. I at page 593, that every Court has an inherent power, quite independently of Order VI, Rule 16, C.P.C. to strike out scandalous matter in any record or proceeding. In Christie v. Christie, (1863) 8 Ch A 499 it is stated that the Court has a duty to discharge towards the public and the suitors, in taking care that its records are kept free from irrelevant and scandalous matter. In re Clive Duram, (1891) ILR 15 Bom 488 the High Court of Bombay refused to allow an application for bail containing defamatory allegations against the trying Magistrate to be filed and ordered it to be returned. In Saminder of Tuni v. Banayya, (1899) ILR 22 Mad 155, the High Court of Madras ordered the objectionable passage in the Memorandum of appeal alleging partiality against the Judge who decreed the suit to be expunged. Thus under Section 151, C.P.C. it is open to the Court to expunge scandalous allegations which are irrelevant to the proceedings, even if they are contained in an affidavit. But as pointed out in the passage in Mulla referred to above it must be noted that nothing can be scandalous which is relevant.”
Apart from the principle explained by the
Madras High Court, Mr. Pal also did not
dispute Court’s inherent power under Section 151
for expunction of unnecessary and scandalous matters from any petitions or affidavits whatsoever even if they may not be
pleadings within the meaning of Order 6, Rule 1, of
the Code. The Court has, therefore, inherent
power to expunge the matters stated in
petitions and affidavits which are analogous
to those enumerated in Order 6, Rule 16 of the
Code.
16. Mr. Pal next contended that no compromise between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 can be recorded, because it is not lawful and violates the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Before recording a compromise, the Court, should make an enquiry to record its satisfaction that it is lawful. Defendant No. 4 is not a party to the compromise and is opposed to it. He is ready and willing to adduce evidence. According to Mr. Pal, it is not a case for withdrawal of the suit simpliciter under Order 23, Rule 1. But as a matter of fact, Rule 3 of the said Order is applicable to the facts of the case. He relied upon a few decisions which shall be discussed in due course. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, urged that the plaintiff and his clients have made a settlement arid in pursuance thereof, apology has been tendered and published in the issue of the Illustrated Weekly of August 27 — September 2, 1989. Defendant No. 4 cannot challenge the legality and validity of the settlement. When the plaintiff has applied to the Court for withdrawal of the suit under Order 23, Rule 1, of the Code, there is no bar for permitting withdrawal. Defendant No. 4 cannot in any circumstances oppose the withdrawal. According to Mr. Mohanty, no compromise petition has been filed in Court duly signed by the parties, the Court has not been requested to record a compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. Therefore, all
the contentions of Mr. Pal are absolutely untenable. He has relied upon AIR 1968. SC 111, Halas Rai Bai Nath v. Firm K. B. Bass and Co., in support of his contention. Mr. Pathaik, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, made it clear that it is a case of withdrawal of the suit simpliciter according to the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1, of the Code. There has been a settlement, between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 outside the Court, It is well within his rights not only to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but also against defendant No. 4. When the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit against defendant No. 4, the latter cannot say that the suit cannot be withdrawn against him and that he would defend it by adducing evidence, although his defence has been struck off and he has been debarred from adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. He further urged that there is no bar according to law for parties to compromise a cause outside the Court and without asking the Court to record the compromise, withdraw the suit or get it dismissed for default or
even decree ex parte. He pointed out that the sole intention of defendant No. 4 in filing the objections, asking for adjournment and to contest the withdrawal of the suit is to linger vilification campaign against the plaintiff and
waste the time and energy of the Court, as well as the other parties.
17. The decision relied upon by Mr. Pal are discussed below. In AIR 1933 Patna 306 (relevant page 401), Smt. Sabitri Thakurain v. Mrs. F. A. Savi a Bench interpreted Order 23, Rule 3, of the Code and held that what the parties do in a compromise of a suit is to adjust their rights and liabilities outside the Court, and then come and ask the Court to
recognise those rights and liabilities and pass its formal expression of adjudication accordingly. This is, however, not a case of compromise and the plaintiff has not asked for a decree on the basis thereof. So the principle is not applicable to this case. In AIR 1934 Madras 337, Seethai Achi v. Meyappa Chettiar a Bench held that it cannot be said that the plaintiff’s right to withdraw the suit is unqualified or absolute. On the other hand, it is clear that this right is subject to all just
exceptions. It does not follow that because the plaintiff is dominus litis and has the right of withdrawing the suit, the court becomes functus officio and is debarred from exercising any further jurisdiction in the suit except in the matter of costs. It is open to the Court to consider and decide any objections that, may be made to the withdrawal of the suit before passing orders op the application for withdrawal. Even though the principle is accepted, the objection of defendant No. 4 against withdrawal has been heard. In, AIR 1936 All 780 (relevant page 787), Raghunath Singh Parmar v. Mukandi Lal, it was held that in a case where there are joint tort-feasors, a compromise with one of them would debar the plaintiff from seeking remedy against others. This case rather supports the case of withdrawal of the suit against defendant No. 4 assuming that all the defendants are joint tort-feasors and there has been a compromise. In, AIR 1980 Delhi 99, Smt. Kiran Arora v. Ram Prakash Arora, it was held by a learned Judge that under Order 23, Rule 3, of the Code, the Court must be satisfied that there has been a lawful agreement or compromise. As already stated, this is not a case of compromise. In, AIR 1984 Orissa 213, Sanyasi Jena v. Mina Jena, it was held that whenever a petition for compromise is filed, the Court should be very cautious, circumspect and scrutinising. This is not, however, a case of compromise or passing of a decree on the basis of the terms and conditions laid down therein. The decision reported in the case of Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K. B. Bass and Co., (AIR 1968 SC 111) (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mohanty is appropriate to the suit. It was held that the language of Order 23, Rule 1(1), of the Code gives an unqualified right to a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit and, if no permission to file a fresh suit is sought under Sub-rule (2) of that Rule, the plaintiff becomes liable for such costs as the Court may award and becomes precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of that subject-matter under Sub-rule (3) of that Rule. There is no provision in the Code which requires the Court to refuse permission to withdraw the suit in such circumstances and to compel the plaintiff to
proceed with it. In view of this principle, the dictum of the Madras High Court in the case of Seethai Achi v. Meyappa Chettiar, (AIR 1934 Madras 337) (supra), is open to doubt.
18 The contention of Mr. Pal that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have entered into a compromise and the petition for withdrawal to substantially one for recording the compromise so as to enable the Court to pass a decree in favour of the former is not wholly correct. It is patent from the order of the Supreme Court quoted in para4 above, as well as the petitions filed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that there has been a settlement/compromise between them and in consequence thereof the apology of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been tendered and published, which has been accepted by the plaintiff as would appear from the averments made in the petition for withdrawal of the suit. But it is not the case of either of them to record a compromise; As a matter of fact, there is no petition for compromise duly signed by the parties before the Court. No prayer has been made to record a compromise and pass a decree in plaintiffs favour in accordance therewith. Therefore, the entire basis of the argument of Mr. Pal falls to the ground. As rightly contended by Mr. Mohanty and Mr. Patnaik, it is a case of withdrawal of the suit simpliciter under Order 23, Rule 1, of the Code and according to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B. Bass and Co., (AIR 1968 SC 111) (supra), the Court has no option than to permit withdrawal of the suit not only against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but also against defendant No. 4 for the simple reason that the plaintiff does not want to press his claim against them and abandons the same.
19. Order 23, Rule 1, of the Code enables the plaintiff to abandon his suit at any time after institution against all or any of the defendants. If his intention is to institute a fresh suit for the same subject-matter or claim or part thereof, Sub-rule (3) shall apply. Only on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) thereof, the Court may grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from the
suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter or claim or part thereof. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff abandons any suit, whole or part of claim, there is nothing in Order 23 to prevent him from doing so. He shall only be liable for such costs grant of which is discretionary as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter, whole or part of the claim. The plaintiffs prayer for withdrawal is substantially under Rule 1(1) (4)(a), because on the same cause of action, subject-matter or claim, he does not want to institute a fresh suit. Therefore, according to law, there is no impediment for the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. This view is in accordance with the principle enunciated in Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K. B. Bass & Co., (AIR 1968 SC 111) (supra).
20. It is necessary to refer to the Illustrated Weekly of India dated August 27, September 2, 1989. In the cover page, a photograph of the plaintiff has been printed. Under the photograph it is mentioned, “J.B. Patnaik Chief Minister of Orissa See Page 3”. At page 3 of the Illustrated Weekly the following has been published in bold letters :–
“APOLOGY
“We, Bennett, Coleman and Company Ltd., Pritish Nandy, Editor of the Illustrated Weekly, and S.N.M. Abdi, Special Correspondent of the Illustrated Weekly, had published two articles under the Captions “The Strange Excapades of J. B. Patnaik’ and ‘Why is J. B. Patnaik being allowed to gag the Press?, in the issues dated 18-24 May 1986 and 3-9 August 1986 respectively, based on information available to us. Subsequently we found that the information on the basis of which these articles were written was not true and was politically motivated. We regret the damage done to Mr. Patnaik’s reputation and offer our apologies to him”.
Tender of apology by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who were the main architects of the articles published in the issues of the Illustrated Weekly dated 18-24 May, 1986 and 1-9 August, 1986 stating that the facts were not true and were politically motivated has put an end according to the plaintiff to all his grievances. If the plaintiff himself has accepted the apology and in view thereof withdraws the suit, it can well be said that the entire controversy between the parties has come to a close and the plaintiffs reputation and moral character stands vendicated and upheld. This being the position and particularly when defendant No. 4 has been debarred from adducing any evidence, oral or documentary, in support of his defence, it will be a futile exercise and complete wastage of time and energy of the Court, as well as of the parties, to continue the suit without any purpose or result, I would like to remind that the Court is not a stage to perform a political drama.
21. It has already been found that under Order 23, Rule 1, of the Code, the plaintiff can withdraw the suit not only against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but also against defendant No. 4 and the latter cannot force the plaintiff to continue the suit against him. This being the position, the allegations made in paras 14, 15 and 19 of the objection of defendant No. 4 dated 5-9-1989 which are unnecessary and irrelevant, as well as abuse of the process of the Court, are liable to be expunged from the records.
22. For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s petition for withdrawal of the suit against all defendants is allowed. Original Suit No. 1 of 1987 stands withdrawn and is closed. The allegations made by defendant No. 4 in paragraphs 14, 15 and 19 of the objection dated 5-9-1989 are expunged. Misc. Case Nos. 83, 84, 85, 87 and 88 of 1989 and all other petitions relating to withdrawal of the suit are hereby disposed of. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.