IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1828 of 2010 Between: Mala Poludasu Nadipi Naganna & another. … Petitioners And Kuruva Thrupathaiah & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri B. Narasimha Sharma The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1828 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is fled against order dated 30.03.2010 in I.A.No.173 of 2010 in O.S.No.792 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed for permanent injunction against the respondents. A written statement was filed in the year 2003. After completion of the pleadings, the trial was conducted and the case was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.173 of 2010 for permission to withdraw the suit with the leave of the Court to file a fresh suit. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. In their application, the petitioners have pleaded that as the respondents have set up title in themselves, it has become necessary for them to withdraw the suit with the leave of the Court to file a fresh suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Court below has held that though the plaint was amended two or three times, the petitioners never sought for amendment of the suit and that only after the suit was posted for arguments, that they have come up with the belated application seven years after filing of the suit. The Court below placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in G. Achanna vs. P. Pratap Reddy[1], wherein it is held that if a party files an application to withdraw the suit with the leave to file a fresh suit not because of any defect in the suit, but because of his chances of loosing the same, such an application shall not be allowed. Order XXIII CPC deals with withdrawal of the suit. Rule 3 of the said order envisages that if the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit or part of a claim, the plaintiff may be granted permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. In the present case, the petitioners failed to satisfy that their case falls under clause (a) of Rule 3. In my opinion, their case does not fall under clause (b) of the said Rule either. As they failed to make out sufficient grounds except stating that as the defendants or the respondents have set up title in themselves, it has become necessary for the petitioners to file a separate suit for declaration. Even if the petitioners had thought that they have sufficient grounds for seeking withdrawal of the present suit and filing a fresh suit, the written statement having been filed in the year 2003, they were not prevented from filing such an application at that time itself. Having taken their chances by participating in the trial and when the case was coming up for arguments, they cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. In my opinion, giving such permission amounts to permitting a party to abuse the process of law. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.2461 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.07.2010. ES [1] 2007 (6) ALT 635