The main legal point established in the judgment is that withdrawal of a suit is not permissible in the absence of fatal defects, and the plaintiff's conduct and intention in seeking withdrawal are crucial factors in the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.10.2019 made in I.A.No.1004 of 2017 in O.S.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.10.2019 made in I.A.No.1004 of 2017 in O.S.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioners are the defendants 4 to 7 and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.166 of 2008. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and 2nd respondent and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and written statement was also filed. Pending suit, the 1st respondent / plaintiff filed I.A.No.1004 of 2017 to permit him to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit stating that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners / defendants had alienated certain property to the 3rd parties. A counter was filed resisting the prayer made in I.A., The court below allowed the 1st respondent / plaintiff''s application and permitted to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh petition. As against the same, the present Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants would submit that the 1st respondent / plaintiff failed to establish that there is a formal defect, which would warrant allowing the application under Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and the 1st respondent has not given any sufficient reason to withdraw the suit and seeking permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Further, the court below failed to note that the 1st respondent / plaintiff could move an application to implead the subsequent purchaser as neessary party to the proceedings instead of moving an application for withdrawal of the suit without giving any sufficient reasons as contemplated under the law, thereby sought to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1004 of 2017 dated 21.10.2019.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for 1st respondent / plaintiff contends that during the pendency of the suit, it came to the knowledge of the 1st respondent / plaintiff that the petitioners / defendants had alienated certain property to the 3rd parties. Since the petitioners / defendants have restrained the 1st respondent / plaintiff''s right and enjoyment over the suit property and the petitioners / defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the nature of the suit and character and time, date have been changed, therefore, sought permission to withdraw the said suit and file a fresh suit, the court below has rightly allowed the same and pleaded to dismiss the present petition.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants would contend that after withdrawing the suit in O.S.No.166 of 2008, as per the orders passed in I.A.No.1004 of 2007 on 21.10.2019, the 1st respondent / plaintiff has sold the subject property in question to the 3rd party, viz., Kalaiarasi, on 02.01.2020.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

7. On going through the averments in the plaint, it is seen that the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of one Sabapathy Pillai and thereafter, his son, namely, Muthukrishnan pillai was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the said Muthukrishnan pillai had executed the document on 26.07.1972 in favour of the 1st respondent / plaintiff''s mother, namely, Sarojammal as a guardian, since the 1st respondent was minor at that point of time. After attaining majority, the 1st respondent / plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent / defendant sought for owner