B. Sasi Mahendran, J

This Order pertains to whether the amendment to the petition should be allowed or not.

The Petitioner has filed this application by petition dated 13.01.2023, seeking inter alia a writ of Certiorari annulling the deed No. 248 annexed to the petition marked P11 and annulling the Plan No. 145 marked as P10 annexed to the Petition and issue mandamus directing the 6th to 8th Respondents to issue a Deed of Transfer to the Petitioner and to move for interim reliefs.

On behalf of the 9th and 10th Respondents, a motion was filed on 24.07.2023, and moved to support this matter on 26.07.2023. In the said motion, it was revealed that the Petitioner in fact has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the same subject matter by instituting the action in case No. CA/WRIT/221/2021. The 9th and 10th Respondents in the present case were the 8th and 9th Respondents in the said case.

When the said case was taken for support on 16.12.2022, the Petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn the said application without reserving any right to file a fresh application.

The Respondents brought to the attention of the Court that this case was not mentioned in the present application. Instead of that, in paragraph 25 of the present petition, the Petitioner has indicated that, “the Petitioner has not previously invoked the jurisdiction of Your Lordships’ Court in respect of the subject matter of this application.”

In the said circumstances, the Petitioner has violated Rule 3(2) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990 and moved to dismiss the application in limine.

When the matter came for support on 26.07.2023, the Counsel for the Petitioner informed the Cirt that he wishes to amend ethe petiion. The Court permitted the amendment subject to objections.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an amendment to the petition on 24.08.2023 and he simply included the previous case in paragraph 25 of the petition, which reads as follows:

“The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has previously filed an application to Your Lordships’ Court in respect of the above said subject matter under the case number CA (WRIT) 0221/21, but moved to withdraw such application. The Petitioner further states that such withdrawal was allowed by Your Lordships’ Court and the application was Pro- forma dismissed.”

The question before us is, after the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents with regard to failure to adhere to Rule 3(2) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990, whether the Petitioner is entitled to amend the petition by inserting the said statement.

This Court’s attention is drawn to the Rule 3(2) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990 which reads as follows:

“(2) The petition and affidavit, except in the case of an application for the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 141 of the Constitution shall contain an averment that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal has not previously been invoked in respect of the same matter. If such jurisdiction has previously been invoked the petition shall contain an averment disclosing relevant particulars of the previous application. where any such averment as aforesaid is found to be false or incorrect the application be dismissed.”

The object of the said rule is to estop the Petitioner from re-agitating the same matter all over again in the same Court by filling s fresh application. When the Petitioner withdrew the previous case, has did not seek permission in the said Court to file a fresh application. Further, it should be stressed that, the Petitioner has failed to disclose in the written submission, there were new material been surfaced.

The basic assumption is that, if a party has invoked the jurisdiction previously in respect to the same matter, he is barred from invoking the jurisdiction for the second time subject to the exceptional circumstances. Our Courts have held that, if this principle is not adhered to when a party who has withdrawn his earl