ORDER :

1. This revision petition is filed against the orders in I.A.No. 1358 of 2012 in O.S.No. 2031 of 2006, dated 30.01.2013 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard learned counsel for revision petitioners and perused the record. None appeared for respondent.

3. The revision petitioners are the defendants/respondents in I.A.No. 1358 of 2012. Initially, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with consequential relief for perpetual injunction in respect to the lands admeasuring Ac.1-06 gts., and Ac.0-18 gts., in Sy.Nos.476 and 478, totally admeasuring Ac.1-24 gts. The interlocutory application was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to withdraw the suit with a leave of the Court to file a fresh suit against the same respondents/defendants in respect to the same suit schedule property and the said I.A. was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the revision petitioners have filed this revision contending that the lower Court ought not to have allowed the I.A. as the nature of the suit itself will be changed and the plaintiff cannot claim reliefs contradicting with each other in the former suit and the latter suit. It is also contended by the counsel for the revision petitioners that the plaintiff has filed an I.A. to amend the pleadings in O.S.No. 2031 of 2006 which was dismissed by the trial Court and in order to cover the lacunas, the present I.A. was filed to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit.

4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that initially the suit was dismissed for default and later it was restored on to the record as per the orders in I.A.No. 1009 of 2010. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the cause of action arose for the initial suit is on the basis of dispossession as such, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the present I.A. was filed before the trial Court with a leave to file a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, which clearly disclose that the nature of the suit itself has been changed and the cause of action itself will change. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that a comprehensive suit has been filed by the plaintiff subsequent to the orders in I.A.No. 1358 of 2012, dated 30.01.2013 and the said suit was also dismissed for default and a restoration application is pending before the trial Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioners/defendants that if the orders of the trial Court are not set aside, irreparable loss will be caused to the defendants. To support his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Bijivemula Venkata Subba Reddy vs. Jangam Satya Babu, 2010 (6) RCR (Civil) 364 : 2009 (2) ALT 689 on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Bhoopathy and Others vs. Kokila and Others, AIR 2000 SC 2132 in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Others, AIR 1987 SC 88 and M/s. Upadhyay and Co. vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1999 SC 509.

5. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession for the above said lands. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land till the date of filing of the suit but it was wrongly mentioned in the plaint pleadings as to the recovery of the possession of the suit schedule land. It is urged by the plaintiff before the trial Court that by taking advantage on the said point, the revision petitioners are frequently interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff being an illiterate, without knowing the real facts, filed the suit and after coming to know about the mistake occurred in the pleadings, filed the petition to withdraw the