O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1361 of 2017 in O.S.No.155 of 2003 dated 16.08.2018 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram, thereby dismissing the petition seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. Originally, the petitioner filed a suit seeking right in Well comprised in S.No.354/1 with 6 HP oil engine and to get water for 4 days in 8 days as per the partition deed dated 28.03.1959 and 01.07.1967. On receipt of the summons, the respondents filed their written statement and specifically avered that no Well is situated in S.No.354/1 and the Well is situated only in S.No.352, in which the petitioner has absolutely no right. It is also stated that the respondents alone have right to draw the water from the Well. While pending the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he also confirmed the contentions raised by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition in I.A.No.928 of 2017 to amend the Survey Number as S.No.352 instead of S.No.354/1 in the schedule of property and the same was dismissed. As such, the petitioner filed a petition seeking permission to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in (2017) 5 SCC 63 (V.Rajendran -vs- Annasamy Pandian), wherein it is held as follows:-

“10. In K.S.Bhoopathy v. Kokila (2000) 5 SCC 458, it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied about the existence of “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds” before granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under the same cause of action. Though, liberty may lie with the plaintiff in a suit to withdraw the suit at any time after the institution of suit on establishing the “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds”, such right cannot be considered to be so absolute as to permit or encourage abuse of process of court. The fact that the plaintiff is entitled to abandon or withdraw the suit or part of the claim by itself, is no licence to the plaintiff to claim or to do so to the detriment of legitimate right of the defendant. When an application is filed under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC, the Court must be satisfied about the “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds”. “Formal defect” is a defect of form prescribed by the rules of procedure such as, want of notice under Section 80 CPC, improper valuation of the suit, insufficient court fee, confusion regarding identification of the suit property, misjonder of parties, failure to disclose a cause of action, etc. “Formal defect” must be given a liberal meaning which connotes various kinds of defects not affecting the merits of the plea raised by either of the parties.

11. In terms of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) (b) where the cournt is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit, the Court may permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. In interpretation of the words “sufficient grounds”, there are two views: one view is that these grounds in clause (b) must be “ejusdem generis” with those in clause (a), that is, it must be of the same nature as the ground in clause (a), that is, formal defect or at least analogous to them; and the other view was that the words “other sufficient grounds in clause (b) should be rad independent of the words a “formal defect” and clause (a). Court has been given a wider discretion to allow withdrawal from suit in the interest of justice in cases where such a prayer is not covered by clause (a). Since in the present case, we are only concerned with “formal defect” envisaged under clause 9a) of Rule 1 sub-rule (3), we choose not to elaborate any further on the ground contemplated under clause (b), that is, “sufficien