This Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The respondent is the defendant in the said suit.

2. The plaintiff filed the said suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the property to an extent of Ac.4-18 guntas. The suit was decreed for an extent of Ac.4-02 guntas by granting permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court denying the relief to a particular portion of the land, preferred A.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. During the pendency of the Appeal, he filed an application covered by I.A.No.594 of2006 underOrder23 Rule 1 (3) read with 151 of C.P.C. praying the appellate Court to permit him to withdraw the suit with a leave and permission to file a comprehensive suit as against respondent for recovery of possession of the land which is under the illegal occupation of the defendant. The lower Court, through the order, dated 24-07-2006 dismissed the application by observing that this is not a fit case to permit the petitioner to withdraw the suit with a leave and permission to file a comprehensive suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court, preferred the present Revision challenging its validity and legality.

3. As the matter involves the question of law, the matter was taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

4. In view of the circumstances, the point for consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the suit with a leave and permission to file a comprehensive suit for recovery of possession of the land and whether the order of the lower Court, dated 24-07-2004 (sic. 2006) is liable to be set aside?"

5. The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction in respect of Ac.4-18 guntas in Sy.No.379/AA. During the pendency of the suit, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner, on physical verification of the lands of the respective parties, submitted a report mentioning that the plaintiff was in possession of an extent of AcA-02 guntas of land and accordingly, the lower Court granted perpetual injunction in respect of AcA-02 guntas land only in favour of the plaintiff. The Commissioners report further discloses that about 23 guntas of land is not in possession of the plaintiff. On the basis of the above observation, the plaintiff decided to file a comprehensive suit for recovery of possession of the land in possession of the defendants which was expected to be in possession of the plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the Court grants permission to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a comprehensive suit, so much prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. He further submitted that the appellate Court also can grant permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit by invoking the powers under Order23 Rule 1 (3) of C.P .C. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Madras High Court reported in Ameena Bi (deceased) and others v. Ameer BI and others1, wherein a single Bench of the Madras High Court, held as follows:

"The power of the appellate Court to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit cannot be doubted. Immediately after filing of the second appeal the plaintiff has also filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession making all the persons interested in the property as parties to the suit. When the parties are already at issue and they have been fighting tooth and nail on the question of title I do not think the plaintiff should be debarred from withdrawing the suit with liberty to her to get necessary relief in the subsequently instituted suit."

The Court further observed as follows:

"The Court felt that interests of justice require that plaintiff should be permitted to