The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of a suit under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code must satisfy the formal defect or analogous defect criteria, and the decision to allow withdrawal is subject to the Court's discretion based on sufficient grounds.

1. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs have focused the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 29.11.2010 in I.A.No.962 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Rasipuram.

2. The Learned District Munsif, while passing the order in I.A.No.962 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2008 dated 29.11.2010, has, among other things, categorically observed that '... The main suit filed by the Petitioners (Plaintiffs) has been posted for cross examination of D.W.1 (on behalf of Defendants -Respondents side) and at that point of time, the Petitioners have filed the petition seeking permission to withdraw the suit and although, on behalf of the Petitioners, it is pleaded that the suit suffers from formal defect, the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners cannot be granted to them' and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs submits that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed the main suit O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of trial Court seeking the relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2007 is not valid and also sought the relief of consequential permanent injunction against the Respondents/ Defendants.

4. The main contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs is that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Decree in O.S.No.92 of 2008 relied on by the Respondents/Defendants has been introduced for the first time in the proof affidavit of D.W.1 and therefore, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have chosen to withdraw the suit viz., O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of trial Court because of the legal impact of the Decree dated 29.01.2010 in O.S.No.92 of 2008 obtained by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have sought a relief of declaration in the main suit in O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court that the suit property is the public road and this relief cannot be granted by the trial Court because the description of the property itself reads that the suit property is situated north of Thottiapatty road and further, in regard to the relief prayed for by the Petitioners for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 02.07.2007 bearing Document No.1608/2007 in favour of the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant [obtained from one Lakshmi for Rs.12,500/-], the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have not paid proper Court Fee for the said relief.

6. That apart, the stand of the Respondents/Defendants is that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are not the trustees of Ponkaliamman or any Mariamman Koil situated in the village etc. Furthermore, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant never claimed that he is going to put up construction on the land he has purchased through the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2007. Added further, 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is not encroaching upon any land intended for taking possession of suit deities and it is false to aver that there will not be any space to take the possession if the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant puts up construction in his land.

7. Continuing further, it is the plea of Respondents/Defendants that the suit property has got market value even as per the Plaint averments made by the Revision Petitioners/ Plaintiffs and as such, the suit ought to have been valued by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs for half of the market value viz., half of Rs.12,500/-, and that too for two counts. To put it shortly, the Court Fees paid by the Plaintiffs is insufficient in regard to the relief sought for by the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the main suit in O.S.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court.

8. It is not in dispute that evidence on the side of the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs in the main suit has been completed. As a matter of fact, the proof affidavit of witness D.W.1 has been filed before the trial Court and the main suit O.S.No.145 of 2008 has been posted for cross- examination of D.W.1.

9. According