1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.500 OF 2008 Balkrishna Pandharinath Shelke .... Applicants & Ors. Vs. Shri Rahul Namdev Kapre & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Surel S. Shah, Advocate for Applicants. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 30th August, 2008 P.C. 1. This application is preferred against the order dated 19th August,2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati rejecting the application made by the applicant under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The application for withdrawal was made at the stage when the suit was posted for judgment. The liberty sought was on the ground that the City Survey Officer and Sub Divisional Officer are necessary parties to the suit who have not been impleaded thereto. According to the applicants, their presence is necessary to bring on record factual position as regards Gram Panchayat property No.1115 and to disclose fraud played in getting property to 2072 surveyed and in obtaining permission for it's non agricultural use. 2 These can hardly be said to be formal defects which cannot be cured in the existing suit. Besides for the purpose of bringing material on record as regards any fraud allegedly played by respondent no. 1 or having survey in respect of any property, the two Government Officers i.e. the Office of City Survey and the Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati are not required to be impleaded. The liberty to be granted under Order 23, Rule 1 of C.P.C. for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and under the same cause of action is conditioned on the satisfaction of the court that the suit must fail on account of a formal defect or there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. In the instant case, there is neither any formal defect nor any sufficient ground for granting liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, particularly when the suit is posted for judgment. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed in lemine. 2. On the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, it is clarified that all the contentions made by the applicants in the application as regards improper conduct of matter by the Advocate and production of evidence before the Court are left open. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)