( 1 ) THIS is a defendants application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The following two questions of law were referred to the Full Bench : (1) Whether the words other sufficient grounds in Rule 1 (2) (b) of Order 23, Civil P. C. , cover grounds other than those mentioned in Rule 1 (2) (a) ? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and on what principles interference under Section 115, civil P. C. , can be justified ?

( 2 ) THE suit wherein these questions arose was one for a declaration to the effect that an oral gift made by the plaintiff, Abdul Rahman, in favour of the defendant, Abdul Ghafoor, his nephew, in 1942 was invalid and ineffectual and the entry of the defendants name in the khewat wrong and fictitious. The transfer, it was alleged, was never accepted by the donee and the property which it covered remained throughout with the plaintiff. One of the issues which arose for determination in the case thus was whether the plaintiff was in possession of the gifted properties.

( 3 ) THE trial Court considered the question on merits and answered it against the plaintiff. It held that the gift was not invalid and it, therefore, dismissed Abdul Rahmans suit. The plaintiff went up to the Court of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, in appeal but before the case was taken up for hearing, he applied for withdrawal of the action with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The reasons which necessitated the withdrawal were stated to be : (1) That there was a formal defect in the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiff inadvertently failed to plead that Section 24, Regulation of agricultural Credits Act (XIV [14] of 1940) operated to render the gift invalid, and (2) That he omitted to pray alternatively for possession.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge did not consider the first ground on merits presumably because he thought that the omission to set up Section 24, Regulation of Agricultural Credits Act could be rectified by amendment of the plaint or that it did not in any event occasion any serious prejudice to Abdul Rahman. He granted leave on the second ground alone, his view being that the plaintiffs omission to seek possessory relief was either a formal defect or a defect akin to it. Abdul Ghafoor questions the correctness of this order and it is contended on his behalf that Rule 1 (2) (a) of Order 23, Civil P. C. , did not apply because the defect, if any, was not of a formal character and further that the case was not covered by Rule 1 (2) (b) in view of the fact that the omission to pray for consequential relief could not in the circumstances of the case be said to be other sufficient ground within the meaning of that clause. It was urged on these grounds that the condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (2) not being present, the learned Civil Judge could not permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and file another on the same cause of action. It was conceded that Clause (a) had no relevancy to the case. The reference was necessitated on account of the conflict of views on the point involved between the Avadh and Allahabad decisions--Md. Ejaz Rasul Khan v. Mubarak husain, A. I. R. (12) 1925 Oudh 291 and Tikai Chowby v. Firm Sheo Dayal Ramji Das, 3 Luck 403 on one side and Kali Bam v. Dharman, A. I. R. (21) 1934 ALL. 214 on the other. The two avadh cases have ruled that, the words other sufficient grounds occurring in Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 23, Civil P. C. should be limited in their scope by the expression formal defect which occurs in the earlier clause and should be governed by the ejusdem generis doctrine. The Allahabad case on the other hand holds that under Clause (b), the Court has unrestricted power to allow withdrawal upon any ground which might in its discretion be deemed sufficient irrespective of the consideration whether the defects pointed out were or were not of a formal character. The l