JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This is a revision against the order of the Munsif of Cuttack permitting withdrawal of a portion of the Plaintiff's suit under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) CPC with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 2. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for ejectment from a house in Cuttack town and also for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the said premises after the giving of notice to quit. At about the same time the Defendant started a case under the Orissa House-Rent Control Act before the House-rent Controller, Cuttack, for fixation of fair and equitable rent for the premises. I am told that the said case is still pending in the file of the House-rent Controller and it may take some time before it is disposed of. 3. The Plaintiff apprehended that so long as the House-rent Control Act case remained pending he would not be able to proceed with the suit so far as damages were concerned inasmuch as the measure of the damages for use and occupation of the house after the expiry of the notice to quit would be determined by the fair rent to be decided by the House-rent Controller. But he was at the same time anxious to proceed with the suit a far as eviction was concerned and thus to recover possession of the house. Therefore, the resorted to the device of applying to the Court for permission to withdraw the suit a far as his claim for damages for use and occupation was concerned and to proceed with the suit in respect of eviction. The learned Munsif allowed this prayer observing that at present the amount of damages could not be conveniently decided and that for that purpose one must await the fixation of the fair rent by the House-rent Controller. The learned Munsif purported to act under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) CPC and permitted the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 4. On behalf of the Defendant-Petitioner Mr. The learned Munsif purported to act under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) CPC and permitted the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 4. On behalf of the Defendant-Petitioner Mr. Rao urged that there was no formal defect in the suit nor was there any other ground for permitting withdrawal analogous to a formal defect and that consequently the lower Court had no jurisdiction to permit withdrawal under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 CPC He relied on a series of Patna decisions reported in Mahendra Ram v. Singi Lal 3 P.L.J. 651, Uchant Ahir v. Basawan Ahir 6 P.L.J. 112 and Dr. Sukumar v. Chairman, Dist. Board, Gaya AIR 1935 Pat. 251 where it was consistently held that the expression 'sufficient grounds' occurring in Clause (b), Sub-rule (2), Rule 1 of Order 23 CPC should be construed ejusdem generis with the words 'formal defect' mentioned in Clause (a) of that sub-rule and that withdrawal can be permitted only if the defect was analogous to a formal defect. He also invited my attention to the latest Allahahad decision reported in Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Abdul Rahman, where the same view was held. 5. Doubtless, there has been some conflict in the decisions of the various High Courts in India as to whether the expression 'sufficient grounds' in Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) should be construed ejusdem generis or else whether it should be given the widest possible meaning. But the majority of the High Courts including the Calcutta, Patna, Allahabad and Madras have now taken the view that the narrow construction should prevail. Apparently, in taking this view they were, to some extent, guided by the decision of the Privy Council reported in Chhaju v. Neki AIR 1922 P.C. 112 while construing the words 'or for any other sufficient reason' occurring in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC There it was held by the Privy Council that the said expression should be construed ejusdem generis with the words used in the preceding clauses and should be interpreted as meaning "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously". As words and phrases have to be given ordinarily the same meaning through out a Code it seems obvious that in Order 23, Rule 1 also the expression 'sufficient grounds' should be construed on similar lines. As words and phrases have to be given ordinarily the same meaning through out a Code it seems obvious that in Order 23, Rule 1 also the expression 'sufficient grounds' should be construed on similar lines. Doubtless, there are certain decisions of the Bombay High Court to the contrary which have been noticed in the Allahabad decision mentioned above. But I see no adequate reason for departing from the settled rule established here on the basis of the Patna decisions which have been supported by the decisions of other High Courts. 6. Mr. Mitra, however, relied on Nunu Singh v. Muni Noth Singh and urged that apart from the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 CPC the Court had inherent power to permit withdrawal u/s 151 CPC and that its discretion exercised under that Section should not be interfered with in this revision. But the main difficulty in accepting this argument lies in the fact that the Court did not purport to exercise its inherent power at all. On the other hand it thought that it had jurisdiction under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) CPC to permit withdrawal. Consequently, it is unnecessary to consider for the purpose of this revision whether inherent power could be invoked in respect of those cases which do not strictly come within the scope of Order 23, Rule 1. 7. The reasons given by the learned Munsif are themselves sufficient to show that there was neither a formal defect nor any ground analogous to such a defect. Merely- because it will be very "convenient" to the opposite party, if fair rent is fixed by the House-rent Contractor, for the purpose of leading evidence regarding quantum of damages for unlawful occupation of the house it cannot be said that sufficient grounds were made out for permitting withdrawal under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) CPC The learned Munsif has clearly acted without jurisdiction in permitting such withdrawal and his order should be set aside. 8. The revision petition is allowed and the order of the Munsif is set aside. But there will be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed