K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition filed O.S.No.1348 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the I Additional Munsiff of Ernakulam, for a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff from service in the first defendant School, as per letter dated 23.6.2003, is void and illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in the first defendant School as a Music Teacher on the same salary and service conditions which he was enjoying at the time of his termination, till the plaintiff's service is lawfully terminated in accordance with the Bye-laws made by the Central Board of Secondary Education. There was also a prayer for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff in service as Music Teacher and to recover a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as damages from the defendants from the date of suit till the plaintiff is reinstated in service.

2. The trial court decreed the suit in part as per the judgment and decree, dated 31.1.2004. The defendants had raised a contention that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court held under issue No.1 that the suit is maintainable. On the merits of the case, the trial court held that as per Rule 29(2) of the Affiliation Bye-laws, the defendants are entitled to terminate the service of the plaintiff as per Ext.A2 termination order. All the requirements under Rule 29 were complied with. After analysing the evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants were adopting an unhealthy practice to cause termination of the services of the plaintiff. However, the trial court held that the defendants had not appointed any new teaching staff in the music department. A mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants that if the defendants wanted to fill up the post of Music Teacher, the plaintiff shall be appointed in the first defendant School. The prayer for declaration and damages were rejected by the trial court.

3. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.200 of 2004, on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Ernakulam.

4. When the suit was filed, a representation submitted by the plaintiff before the Central Board of Secondary Education complaining about his illegal termination from service was pending. But the plaintiff did not mention the same in the plaint. Even at the time of evidence, the pendency of the matter before the Central Board of Secondary Education was not brought to the notice of the civil court. After disposal of the suit on 31.1.2004, the Central Board of Secondary Education passed an order, dated 23.2.2004, in favour of the plaintiff Teacher, after finding that his termination from service was bad, illegal and arbitrary. The Central Board of Secondary Education also held that the order of termination is null and void. The management of the School was directed to follow the provisions of the Affiliation Bye-laws in letter and spirit.

5. After the order was passed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3566 of 2004 in A.S.No.200 of 2004, seeking permission to withdraw the suit. The prayer was objected to by the defendants, who were respondents in the appeal. The court below allowed the application by the order impugned in this Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below was not justified in permitting the suit to be withdrawn as rights have already accrued in favour of the defendants in the suit. The counsel submits that the plaintiff having not approached the court with clean hands and having suppressed material facts, he cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit and get rid off the findings rendered by the trial court against him. The counsel relied on the decisions in K.S.Bhoopathy and others v. Kokila and others (AIR 2000 SC 2132) and in Neelakanta Pillai v. Madhava Kurup (2007 (2) KLT 340). The counsel for the petitioner also submits that against t