1. The controversy is about the scope of 0.23 R.1 (3) CPC., and the facts are these:

2. Claiming themselves to be the owners of a building let out to the revision petitioner and her children, respondents (1) and (2) herein tiled R.CO P. 114/72 for eviction, on grounds of arrears of rent. The tenants contended that the site of the building was taken out on "karaima" right and that the building was put up by them. Landlord-tenant relationship within the meaning of Act 2/65 was thus denied, and a tenancy within the meaning of the Land Reforms Act (1/64) was set up. The Rent Control Court thought that there was a bona fide dispute regarding title and referred the parties to a civil suit. Respondents (1) and (2) then filed O. S.2/74 for recovery of possession of the building with arrears of rent. The suit was also based on the contract of letting. The trial court held that the contract was not established. The plaintiffs filed an appeal (A. S.120/78) before the Sub Court. During the pendency of the appeal, they sought the permission of the appellate court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on title. The court allowed this request by order dated 17-12-80,