The grounds for allowing a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1(2) must be ejusdem generis with the ground specified in Rule 1(2)(a) or at least analogous to it.

Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiff is a minor represented by a next friend; and she has brought this suit as a reversioner against the widow of the last male owner, in possession, alleging acts of waste and mismanagement. A number of specific acts of waste and mismanagement were set out in the original plaint, which was filed on 2nd October, 1933. In 1934 an application was put in by the plaintiff to be allowed to amend the plaint on the ground that fresh acts of waste had come to the notice of the next friend. That petition was allowed in the High Court. In 1938, another application was put in to amend the plaint, alleging further acts of waste and mismanagement. That petition was refused on the ground that it was very belated and that the facts alleged must have come to the notice of the plaintiffs next friend long before the time alleged. The order dismissing the second application to amend was brought to the High Court in revision; and the revision petition was dismissed. The plaintiff has now filed an application to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same causes of action. That petition was allowed and the defendants have preferred this revision petition against that order.

2. Permission can be given to a plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action where, in the words of Order 23, Rule 1(2), the Court is satisfied (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect; or (b) that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. It has been consistently held by this Court that the sufficient grounds referred to in Rule1(2)(b), must be ejusdem generis with the ground specified in Rule 1(2)(a), that is, there must be some formal defect. Sadasiva Aiyar, J., sitting with Oldfield, J., in Kannusdmi Pillai v. Jagathambal (1918)35MLJ27 , doubted whether this was the case; but Oldfield, J., reviewing the previous decisions of this Court, was satisfied that that was the rule. In all the Madras cases since then, as well as in the decisions of other High Courts, it has been held without exception that the grounds in Rule 1(2)(b) must be, if not ejusdem generis with the ground in Rule 1(2)(a), at any rate analogous to it. Palikanji Chettiar v. Krishna Aiyar (1925) 23 L.W. 525, Venkataramayya v. Veerasamt (1924) 21 L.W. 282, Niamathulla Khan Sahib v. Abdul Razack Sahib (1924) 22 L.W. 535. Cherukuri Nagamma v. Cherukuri Lakshminarasu AIR1928Mad1085 , Ramrao Bhagwantrao v. Babu Appanna Samage (1939) 42 B.L.R. 143 and Jumma v. Ram Sahai AIR1934All137 , are among the cases quoted, where this principle has been laid down and confirmed. No cases to the contrary have been cited. It is true that a Bench of this Court in Krishnan Somayajipad v. Raman Nair AIR1929Mad36 allowed an amendment of a plaint where the defect was apparently not a formal one; but the question whether such an amendment could be allowed or not, did not there come up for decision and the point was not considered. In Doraisami Pillai v. Thungasami Pillai (1903) 14 M.L.J. 159 : I.L.R. 27 Mad. 377, where a suit of a minor was withdrawn because the next friend was not possessed of sufficient funds to further conduct the suit, the Court set aside the order dismissing the petition to review the order of dismissal of the suit on the ground that the minor ought not to be prejudiced by making it impossible for him to agitate a genuine grievance merely because his next friend did not have any money. The suit was restored. Whether or no an application was put in to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one we do not know; but that was a case in which it might be said that there was a formal defect or something analogous to it.

3. The principal argument of Sampath Aiyangar for the respondent is that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the learned Subordinate Judges order. He very rightly points out that the mere fact that the