A plaintiff may withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 if formal defects are established; however, courts have discretion to deny withdrawal if satisfactory reasons are not presented.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated July 11, 2023 passed by 'the District Munsif Court, Panruti' ['Trial Court' for convenience] in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.197 of 2022 filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] in O.S. No.169 of 2008, thereby permitting the petitioner therein to withdraw the Suit in O.S. No.169 of 2008 with liberty to file a fresh Suit with the same cause of action.

2. The Revision Petitioner and the Respondents 2 to 7 herein are the defendants and the First respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.169 of 2008 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will henceforth be referred as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Sum and substance of the plaintiff's case is as follows :

(i) The defendants 1 and 2 are the husband and wife. The plaintiff and the defendants 3, 5, and 6 are the daughter and sons of the defendants 1 and 2 respectively.

(ii) An extent of 1 Acre and another extent of 60 Cents, both in Survey No.97/1, both having their own specific four boundaries, are the Suit Item Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The suit properties were assigned to defendants 1 and 2 on April 30, 1994 by the Government for the benefit of the joint family members. Defendants 1 and 2 were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on behalf of joint family members. As per the terms and conditions of the assignment, the assignees are not entitled to alienate the suit properties until the completion of 10 years from the date of assignment.

(iii) While the plaintiff being a joint family member is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property, the defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 colluded together and alienated the suit property in favour of the defendants 4 and 7. The plaintiff contends that the alienation would not bind her share. Hence she filed the Suit in O.S. No.169 of 2008 before the Trial Court seeking partition of her respective share in the suit properties by setting aside the Sale deeds dated February 10, 2006 and January 30, 2006 executed in favour of the defendants 4 and 7.

4. That being the case of the plaintiff, the defendants 4 and 7 who are purchasers the portions of suit properties, filed the written statement jointly under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, stating that it is not correct to allege that the suit properties were originally owned by Government and that they were assigned in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. An extent of 77 ½ Cents in Suit survey number was purchased by first defendant vide Sale Deed dated August 24, 1984. The remaining extent in the Suit survey number was ancestral and joint family entitlement of first defendant. Totally the joint family of first defendant owned 1 Acre 60 Cents in Suit survey number, which was in possession of first defendant and his other coparceners namely defendants 3, 5 and 6. Defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 executed Sale Deed dated July 02, 2003 in respect of Suit Item No.1 in favour of one Chitra, who in turn executed Sale Deed dated February 10, 2006 in favour of 4^th defendant. Further, the defendants 1 and 2 executed the Sale Deed dated April 28, 2004 in favour of one Babu in respect of Suit Item No.2. Subsequently, the said Mr.Babu executed Sale Deed dated January 30, 2006 in favour of the 7^th defendant. Furthermore, on the date of the aforesaid Sale Deeds, the