The court held that "other sufficient grounds" in Order 23, Rule 1(2), C. P. C., should be interpreted liberally and could include grounds analogous to formal defects, such as the inability of the next friend to produce evidence due to the defendant's efforts to obstruct the proceedings.

( 1 ) THE order of the Subordinate Judge of Khammammeth refusing to grant permission to the plaintiff in Suit No. 11/1 of 1958 to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit, is questioned in this revision petition.

( 2 ) THE array of the parties in this suit and the purpose fur which this suit was filed need mention. The plaintiff is a minor and is a son of the 1st defendant. The minor plaintiff has been adopted to the brother of the 1st defendant. The adoptive mother of the minor plaintiff filed this suit to set aside a gift deed executed by his natural father, the 1st defendant, in favour of the 2nd defendant who is the sister of the 1st defendant. Though more than two years have elapsed since the filing of the suit, the trial of the suit has not gone on. On 16-12-1959, an application under Order 23, Rule 1, C. P. C. was filed by the next friend of the minor plaintiff. The next friend alleged in it that the defendant obviously meaning the 1st defendant made strenuous efforts and is not allowing any person to speak the truth and that the requisite evidence is not avail-able for no fault of the plaintiff and that as valuable rights of the minor are involved, it is in his (minors) interests to withdraw the suit reserving liberty to bring a fresh one.

( 3 ) THIS is opposed by both the defendants on whose behalf only a verified petition was filed by their advocate The objection taken is as follows:"no permission can be given to the plaintiff to with draw his suit, reserving his right to institute fresh suit. The suit is fit to be dismissed. Non-availability of evidence is not a ground to give permission to withdraw suit. The defendants have incurred great loss and expenditure. "the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that there is no sufficient ground to grant the permission asked for as he felt bound on the authority furnished by Veeraswami v. Lakshmudu, AIR 1951 Mad 715, to hold that insufficient evidence will not be matter coming under Clause (a) or (b) of Rule 1 (2) of Order 23, C. P. C. since the words "other sufficient grounds" found in clause (b) has been interpreted to mean ejusdem generis to those mentioned in Clause (a ). He therefore, dismissed the application.

( 4 ) IN this revision petition, Mr. Venugopala Reddy had striven to make out that the view taken by Sadasva Ayyar j. in Kannusami Pillai v. Jagathambal, ILR 41 Mad 701 : (AIR 1919 Mad. 1071), has to be preferred to the contrary view taken in the very same decision-by Oldfield J. He submitted that if his argument finds favour, the order of the lower Court dismissing the application would be manifestly wrong. The argument of the learned counsel is that it is enough for a person, who reserves the liberty to file a fresh suit requesting permission therefor as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 23, C. P. C. , to show that there are sufficient grounds for allowing such a plaintiff to institute a fresh suit, and that those sufficient grounds are meant to be other than those mentioned in Clause (a) of that sub-rule viz. , "formal defect", and further "other sufficient grounds" mentioned in clause (b) need not be construed ejusdem generis with "formal defect" mentioned in Clause (a ). No doubt, if this question has arisen for the first time In this Court or has to be decided without reference to expression of views in prior decisions, I would be inclined to hold that there is much to be said in favour of this contention. Firstly, in support of this view of mine, there is the weighty opinion of Sadasiva Ayyar, J. where the learned Judge has brought out how and when the doctrine of ejusdem generis could be pushed into service and that too scarcely and what limitations have been set in regard to it even by English cases. He had also given the reasons which appealed to him for the undesirability of applying this doctrine in interpreting "other sufficient grounds" occurring In Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 23, C. P. C.