ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the dismissal of his application in I.A.No.20 of 2014 in O.S.No.387 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, dated 13.03.2014.

2. The petitioner herein had filed an application in I.A.No.20 of 2014 in O.S.No.387 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, under Order 23 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.387 of 2008 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode, by the order dated 13.03.2014 had dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard, Mr. V. LakshmiNarayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. A. Sundaravadhanam, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.387 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from evicting him from the suit property except under due process of law. He further submitted that during pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed an application in I.A.No.1216 of 2011 seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief to declare that the settlement deed dated 17.04.2008 executed by the first respondent herein in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 is not valid and will not bind upon him and the said application was allowed and accordingly, the plaint was amended. He further submitted that when the respondents/defendants made an attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property, as an urgent measure, the petitioner had filed the said suit seeking injunction to restrain the respondents from evicting him from the suit property except under due process of law, based on the long and continues possession.

5. He further submitted that the petitioner in fact had perfected his title over the suit property by adverse possession but since there was an urgency to protect his possession, the petitioner had filed a suit for limited relief of injunction but, subsequently he changed the counsel and new counsel advised him that there are formal defects in the said suit which cannot be rectified and he has to file a fresh comprehensive suit for declaration of title and hence the petitioner had filed an application in I.A.No.20 of 2014 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, but without considering the aforesaid facts, the trial Court had dismissed the said application. He further submitted that since the petitioner wants to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of his title, permission may be given to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Therefore, he prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.20 of 2014 and allow the said application.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions:-

(1) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. Buchi Reddy (Dead) and Ors., (2008) 4SCC 594;

(2) Rajamanickam Vs. P. Dhandapani and others, 2013 (5) CTC 385.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid suit on 21.06.2008 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants herein from evicting him except under due process of law. He further submitted that the respondents herein had filed a detailed written statement denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Thereafter, when the suit was posted for trial, the petitioner did not appear and hence, the suit was dismissed for default on 08.09.2009. He further su