C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Assailing the order dated 30.01.2017, passed in I.A. No. 554 of 2016 in O.S. No. 172 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein an application filed Under Order 23, Rule 1 and section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit was rejected, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts in issue are as under:

The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 172 of 2006 seeking division of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bunds by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the only daughter of defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers and the suit schedule property originally belonged to one R. Jayarami Reddy, who is the father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed in the year 1995 and at the time of marriage, no dowry or property was given to the plaintiff since the plaintiff is the only daughter of defendant No. 1 and she would be entitled to the entire share. It is stated that defendant No. 1, being kartha of joint family property mismanaged the family properties in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff and is making hectic efforts to alienate the entire ancestral property and joint family properties. It is also stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No. 3 without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, hence, filed the suit for partition.

3. Written Statement came to be filed by defendant No. 1 opposing the same. It is stated in the written statement that defendant No. 2 had acquired most of the properties with his own earnings and hardship and that they never purchased any property from and the income of their father. Out of affection and on the advice of elders and relatives of both the parties, defendant No. 2 allotted some properties to defendant No. 1. After the death of their father, an amicable partition took place in between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their mother, pursuant to which a registered partition deed was also executed and they are enjoying their respective shares exclusively with absolute rights. It is said that the plaintiff filed the present suit at the instigation of the husband of the plaintiff, with a view to extract money from them.

4. Pending the said suit the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to withdraw the suit on the ground that she has not included all the properties of the family and also other coparcener's as parties.

5. A counter came to be filed opposing the same. It is however stated in the counter that PWs.1 and 2 clearly admitted that the plaint schedule property belonged to the wife of defendant No. 2 and also with regard to the partition deed. Hence, it is pleaded that the admissions cannot now be allowed to be withdrawn. It is also stated in the counter that the plaintiff intentionally not added the wife of defendant No. 2, who is the owner of the plaint schedule property, as party to the suit. It is further stated that the evidence of the plaintiffs was completed long back and when the suit is posted for cross examination of the defendants, the question of permitting the petitioner to withdraw the suit permitting him to file fresh suit cannot be allowed.

6. After considering the rival submissions made, the trial Court rejected the said application. Challenging the same the present revision came to be filed.

7. Order 23, Rule 1(3) of Code of Civil Procedure deals with grant of permission to withdraw the suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action.

8. The satisfaction of the court, that the suit shall fail by reason of some formal defect, is mandatory. Hence, it is essential for the plaintiff, while seeking leave of the court under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the CPC to establish normal defects in