1. The controversy is about the scope of 0.23 R.1. The respondent instituted OS 103/80 before the Munsiff's Court, for injunction restraining the defendants from cutting an Anjili tree; and the suit was subsequently amended to incorporate a relief for mandatory injunction also, for restoring a thodu the defendants had tampered with. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the tree belonged to the defendants, but observing that the plaintiff should have sued for declaration of title. The plaintiff preferred AS 163/82 before the District Court; and soon thereafter, apparently on the basis of legal advice, he filed another suit before the Munsiff's Court OS 352/82 for declaration of title to the property, the tree and also for damages. IA 719/83 was then moved in AS 163 for permission to withdraw OS 108/80, under 0.23 R.1, and the learned District Judge granted the permission. This revision challenges the said grant.

2. Mr. O. V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the defendants contends that 0.23 R.1 permits only withdrawal of suits pending in the trial court, and that once the suit is disposed of by that court and an appeal preferred, the appellate court cannot permit withdra