The court's interpretation of the term "sufficient grounds" in Order 23, Rule 1(3), C.P.C. and the exercise of its judicial discretion in allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant 1 in T. S. No. 40/83 filed before the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi, is the petitioner in this application under S. 115 of Civil P. C. seeking to challenge the order of the Court accepting the application of the plaintiff under O. 23, R. 1 (3) (b), C. P. C. for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Satyabadi Samal, opposite party 1 in this application, filed the suit impleading the petitioner, Duryodhan Jena and the opposite parties 2 to 9 as defendants therein. The relief sought in the plaint was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 not to interfere with his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. The gist of the averments in the plaint was to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the land comprised in Khata No. 340, Plot No. 733, situated in mouza Gurandi, being his ancestral property. The plaintiff was in possession of the said land and was paying kist for the same before and after the abolition of the Parlakhemundi Estate. The plaintiff and defendant 1 are close relations of each other, the former being brother-in-law (Sala) of the latter and the plaintiffs daughter having been given in marriage to the son of defendant 1. The other defendants were close to these parties and they contributed funds towards share capitals for establishment of a cinema house in Gurandi village on the suit land. The theatre runs under the name of "pratibha Talkies, Gurandi". It was decided that the plaintiff would be managing partner of the cinema. After the building was completed and necessary machineries installed therein, the then Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam inaugurated the cinema on 17-8-1956. On 1-9-1959 an agreement was executed by defendant 1 that the defendant 4, A. Appa Rao and the plaintiff would run the cinema for 3 years and would pay Rs. 6,000/- per annum to the shareholders mentioned above. Since the defendant 1 was taking active interest in construction of the building of the cinema and he was the only person amongst the partners who was educated and well conversant with English Language, he became the manager of the cinema. According to the plaintiff, since he was the owner of the land on which the cinema building was constructed and contributed funds for purchase of furniture for the theatre, he was enjoying absolute rights over the said theatre and the other shareholders were getting their share of profit. It was further averred in the plaint that A. Appa Rao, Bendi Sitamboro Rao and Poornochandrao Patro died. Appa Rao's share was purchased by defendant 6, and he became the partner. Defendant 7, the widow of Bendi Sitamboro, became the partner after the death of her husband. Similarly, defendant 9, the widow of Poornochandra Rao, became the partner after the death of her husband. In spite of demand of the partners for accounts and for distribution of profit, defendant 1 did not render accounts. He surreptitiously took away the records and kept them concealed somewhere. The plaintiff further averred that he, as managing partner, remodelled the building of Pratibha Talkies. The licence issued for running the cinema expired on 31-10-1983. In spite of there being no licence, defendant 1 who had no right, title, interest or possession over the property began to forcibly operate the cinema and was making illegal collections. Though the plaintiff had forbidden defendant 1 not to exhibit films he paid no heed to it. On these averments the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction in terms already indicated above.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT 1, Duryodhan Jena (petitioner in this proceeding), alone filed a written statement. Therein he denied most of the averments made in the plaint. He asserted that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit property nor was he in possession thereof. He further stated that the plaintiff had not constructed the suit house as alleged by him. Indeed, the suit site belonged to the