The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit should be considered with care and circumspection, and the grant of leave under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is at the discretion of the court and can only be accorded if the conditions specified therein are satisfied.

1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/Respondents/Defendants have filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.03.2008 in I.A.No.225 of 2007 in O.S.No.80 of 2000 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Coimbatore District.

2. The Trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.225 of 2007 on 06.03.2008, has among other things observed that ... The Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs are showing sufficient grounds for allowing the application under Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and they are having liberty to withdraw the suit, since there are sufficient defects in the plaint, committed while framing the suit etc. and resultantly, allowed the application without costs.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants, the Trial Court has failed to see that the Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs who attempted to change the entire character of the suit, cause of action of the suit and sought to seek reliefs bared by limitation having failed in such an attempt upto the Honble Supreme Court, cannot achieve by filing an application for withdrawal of the suit with leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that mere statement by the Plaintiffs that there is a formal defect in the frame and form of suit is not enough to allow an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the requirement of Order 23 Rule 1(3) must be satisfied by the plaintiffs and in fact, the Plaintiffs made an attempt earlier to amend the plaint which was disallowed by all the Courts and to get over the same, the Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs have failed I.A.No.225 of 2007 before the Trial Court under Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and in any event, the Trial Court has not appreciated of the fact that nowhere in the affidavit in I.A.No.225 of 2007 the Respondents/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs are explained what are the formal defects that are sort to be rectified by way of filing a fresh suit and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition to promote substantial cause of justice.

5. In the affidavit of the 3rd Respondent/3rd Petitioner/ 3rd Plaintiff in I.A.No.225 of 2007 in O.S.No.80 of 2000, it is, among other things, mentioned that the other Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs are his co-sharers and that he has filed the suit O.S.No.80 of 2000 through previous counsel for the relief of declaration that plaint documents No.4 and 5 are not binding on him and other Respondents/Petitioners, null and void etc. and that the Revision Petitioners/Respondents were entitled to half share each in Ac.2.81 in S.F.No.22/1A, Ac.1.00 in S.F.No.24/1, the building in S.F.No.22/1A building and well in Natham S.F.No.169B with motor pumpset and Service connection and as per Plaint Document No.1 viz., sale deed dated 27. 1975 the 1st Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent sold his half share to the 1st Respondent/1st Petitioner and as per Plaint Document No.2 viz., sale deed dated 20.12.1976, the 2nd Revision Petitioner/2nd Respondent sold his half share to his father Kuttiappan and that the Revision Petitioners denial in the written statement is only evasive and after execution of these two sale deeds the Revision Petitioners/Respondents have no right, title, possession or interest over the said properties and that the 1st Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent executed a lease deed on 7. 1979 in favour of the 2nd Revision Petitioner/2nd Respondent as if he still owned a half share in the properties.

6. Further, the 1st Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent on 110. 1997 executed a General Power of Attorney empowering the 2nd Revision Petitioner/2nd Respondent to deal with his purported half share in the properties and these documents are void one.

7. The case of the Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs is that