dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning, and are without power to interpolate or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.”
State v. Camp, 286 N.C. 148, 152, 209 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1974) (quoting 7 Strong, N.C. Index 2d Statutes § 5 (1968)). Accord, e.g., Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Group, 493 U.S. 120, ---, 107 L. Ed. 2d 438, 445 (1989) (when interpreting a statute, “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.”). In the instant case, the statute we are applying, North Carolina General Statute § 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1), provides as follows:
(a) Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.—
(1) By Plaintiff; by Stipulation.—
Subject to the provisions of Rule 23(c) and of any statute of this State, an action or any claim therein may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the plaintiff rests his case, or; (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once *451dismissed in any court of this or any other state or of the United States, an action based on or including the same claim. If an action commenced within the time prescribed therefor, or any claim therein, is dismissed without prejudice under this subsection, a new action based on the same claim may be commenced within one year after such dismissal unless a stipulation filed under (ii) of this subsection shall specify a shorter time. (Emphasis supplied.)
The plain meaning of the last sentence of this subsection is that in order for the one-year extension to be available to a party, the party must have dismissed the action under North Carolina General Statute § 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1). In the instant case, the parties have stipulated that the dismissal at issue was taken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The cases were originally filed in federal district court; because they were not removed there from a State court, principles relevant to removal cases do not apply in the instant case. Obviously, where a case was initiated by plaintiffs in a federal court, a dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) is not a dismissal “under this subsection” of North Carolina Rule 41(a)(1); only a voluntary dismissal taken pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) can be “under this subsection.” Contrary to the majority’s statement that “the words ‘under this subsection’ do not limit application of the savings provision,” Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. 436, 449, 402 S.E.2d 627, 636, the rule does limit the class of litigants who may benefit from the savings clause to those who take dismissals pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. State Rule 41(a)(1) in no way permits a case initiated and dismissed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be considered to have been “under this subsection” — that is under a North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure — for the purpose of the one-year extension.1
Had the General Assembly intended claims which were initially brought and dismissed in federal courts or in courts of other states to come under the sentence at issue, it could have so provid*452ed. Gf., e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § 9-2-61 (Supp. 1990). When drafting North Carolina General Statute § 1A-1, Rule 41(a) and amendments thereto, the legislature was aware of the possibility of dismissal in other jurisdictions, as can be seen by the second sentence of Rule 41(a)(1) in which direct reference was made to the prejudicial effect of dismissing a case more than once “in any court of this or any other state or of the United States . . . .” The fact' that this sentence is followed by a sentence expressly limiting the one-year extension to voluntary dismissals taken “under this subsection” indicates that the dismissals must be taken pursuant to North Carolina Rule 41(a)(1) and not the rules of any other jurisdiction in order to take advantage of the one-year extension.
The majority opinion’s extensive analysis of the reasons for having symmetry between State and Federal Rules 41 is interesting; however, the statute can be amended only by the General Assembly, not by this Court. The fact of the matter is that Federal Rule 41 and North Carolina Rule 41 do not have equivalent language, and to amend the North Carolina Rule as the majority has done in its opinion is to invade the province of the General Assembly with respect to North Carolina General Statute § 1A-1, Rule 41. While this Court has exclusive authority to amend the appellate rules, the General Assembly is the sole source of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, unless this authority is expressly delegated to the Supreme Court. N.C. Const, art. IV, § 13(2) (1984). Cf. State v. Campbell, 14 N.C. App. 596, 188 S.E.2d 558 (1972). This the General Assembly has not done.
The majority’s discussion of the law to be applied in federal courts in diversity settings is similarly interesting, but without any relevance to the application of a North Carolina rule of procedure in a North Carolina court. Further, the majority’s remark that “[t]he issue here is the effect of plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal under the Federal Rules in a federal court sitting in diversity applying North Carolina law on a subsequent refiling outside the statute of limitations in state court” is misleading. Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 442, 402 S.E.2d at 631. Whether or not the federal court was sitting “in diversity” in the original case initiated and dismissed by the plaintiffs is irrelevant, as the federal court properly applied the federal rules of procedure at the time the dismissal was taken in that court. There was no application whatsoever of North Carolina substantive or, for that matter, procedural law in the federal court in the prior voluntary dismissal *453by plaintiffs. As a consequence, the majority’s discussion of High and the cases cited therein is presented in a false light. The fact that in High the parties were litigating a diversity case has nothing to do with the instant case, except for the incidental similarity that had the original case that was brought in federal court not been dismissed, State substantive law would have been applied in deciding the merits of the case. The reason that High is relevant is because there, as in the present case, this Court was called upon to determine whether, under the then applicable North Carolina statute, the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a case he initiated in federal court could toll a period of limitations so as to allow another case predicated on the same cause of action to be later filed in a North Carolina court.
In fact, the majority inappropriately overrules High v. Broadnax, 271 N.C. 313, 156 S.E.2d 282 (1967). In High, this Court was applying North Carolina General Statute § 1-25 (1953), which provided:
New action within one year after nonsuit, etc. — If an action is commenced within the time prescribed therefor, and the plaintiff is non-suited, or a judgment therein reversed on appeal, or is arrested, the plaintiff or, if he dies and the cause of action survives, his heir or representative may commence a new action within one year after such nonsuit, reversal, or arrest of judgment, if the costs in the original action have been paid by the plaintiff before the commencement of the new suit, unless the original suit was brought in forma pauperis.
The High court correctly held that this statute had no application “when the original suit was brought in another jurisdiction,” id. at 316, 156 S.E.2d at 284 (emphasis in original), including a federal jurisdiction. The statute we are applying in the instant case is not materially different from former section 1-25 in this respect.
It should also be noted that the majority appears to suggest that High did not refer to a particular American Law Reports (“A.L.R.”) annotation concerning the effect of a voluntary dismissal in federal court on a later case attempting to rely on a state tolling provision. Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 443, 402 S.E.2d at 631-32. In fact, High did cite this annotation, and properly placed it in the context of discussing the application of such a statute in removal cases. See High, 271 N.C. at 316, 156 S.E.2d at 285. The majority opinion makes much of the fact that this A.L.R. annotation recites that “the great weight of authority either assumes *454the applicability or applies the tolling statute in cases where the original action is brought ... in a [fjederal forum . . . .” Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 443, 402 S.E.2d at 631, quoting from Annot., “State statute permitting new action within specified time after judgment or decree not on the merits in a previous action, as applicable where either the first action or the new action was brought in or removed to a Federal court,” 156 A.L.R. 1097, 1099 (1945). However, this “great weight of authority” as listed in the annotation consists of the citation of case law in only six states (including North Carolina) and a number of federal courts, some of which cases (including those from North Carolina) are discussing the application of this sort of statute in removal contexts. Presumably, the reason a statute such as former section 1-25 or current section 1A-1, Rule 41(a) applies in a removal situation is because it would be unfair to allow defendants to gain control of plaintiffs ability to take advantage of a tolling statute such as former section 1-25 by removing a case to a federal forum where plaintiffs voluntary dismissal would then otherwise be considered as having been taken in “another jurisdiction.” This is a more plausible reason for the “great weight of authority” of (removal) cases cited in the annotation at issue than the majority’s statement that “[t]he apparent rationale for this principle is that the parties to a federal action in diversity should know that state substantive law governs their case and whether the applicable state substantive law contains a savings provision.” Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 443, 402 S.E.2d at 631. See, e.g., Brooks v. Lumber Co., 194 N.C. 141, 138 S.E. 532 (1927).
Further, the fact that there may be a “trend towards a liberal application of state [statutory] savings provisions,” Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 446, 402 S.E.2d at 633, does not permit this Court to amend the statute. Again, it is not this Court which is “mar[ring] the symmetry of the legal structure,” Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 447, 402 S.E.2d at 634; it is the General Assembly which deliberately has passed and ratified a rule of civil procedure which is not symmetrical to the federal rule. Cf. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 41, Comment to the 1969 Amendment (Noting that while “[s]ection 41(b) has been rewritten[] in conformity with the present federal rule," the newly amended section 41(a) was not.).2 *455Although the majority says that “[n]o reason is apparent sufficient to justify this inconsistency or artificial exception in our law,” Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 447, 402 S.E.2d at 634, this alleged inconsistency is not a matter for the Court to remedy. It is the General Assembly’s mandate to bring symmetry between North Carolina Rule of Procedure 41 and Federal Rule of Procedure 41, if that is what the General Assembly would like to do. As the majority opinion observes, the Georgia legislature amended Georgia Code § 9-2-61 in 1985 to provide a six-month tolling provision “[w]hen any case has been commenced in either a state or federal court . . . and the plaintiff discontinues or dismisses the same.” Ga. Code Ann. § 9-2-61 (Supp. 1990) (emphasis supplied). Of course, until the Georgia legislature did so, the Georgia courts were required to apply an earlier statute which, like the present North Carolina General Statute § 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1), did not contain a tolling provision if a case was dismissed in a federal court. E.g., Blaustein v. Harrison, 160 Ga. App. 256, 286 S.E.2d 758 (1981) (where plaintiff’s medical malpractice suit was initiated and dismissed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiff could not take advantage of the six-month tolling provision to institute action in state court after the usual two-year statute of limitations had run its course). As the majority opinion also says, like Georgia, Tennessee has apparently also amended a refiling-tolling statute to make it applicable to dismissals of federal cases. Bockweg v. Anderson, 328 N.C. at 445, 402 S.E.2d at 632. In North Carolina, we, too, must wait for the General Assembly to act.
This Court has inappropriately amended Rule 41 and overruled its own prior case law. I dissent.
Justice MEYER joins in this dissenting opinion.. If any section of North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 41 applies to evaluating the prior dismissal taken by the instant plaintiffs in federal court, it is Rule 41(b) which provides that “any dismissal not provided for in this rule . . . operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”
. Presumably, the General Assembly was aware of the 1967 High case when it amended Rule 41(a) in the way that it did in 1969.