JUDGMENT N.U. Beg, J. - This is a revision filed on behalf of the Defendant. It arises out of a suit for partition filed by the Plaintiff in respect of a house alleged by him to be ancestral, and for a declaration that the mortgage deed executed by his father was invalid and unenforceable. The Plaintiff impleaded his father and the creditors in the suit. The suit was filed in the year 1946. The Plaintiff presented an application in the trial court for the withdrawal of the suit on 27-7-1953, that is, seven years after the filing of the suit. On the same date the court passed the following order on that application: The suit is allowed to be withdrawn and the permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action is granted provided Defendants are paid their costs within six months. 2. Dissatisfied with the above order, this revision has been filed by Defendant No. 5 who was one of the creditors. 3. On behalf of the applicant, it is contended that the order passed by the trial, court does not disclose the grounds on which the application was allowed. It does not show that the court has applied its mind to the facts of the case. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit can be allowed to be withdrawn under Order 23, Rule 1 which runs as follows: 1. (i) At any time after the institution of a suit the Plaintiff may, as against all or any of the Defendants, withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim. (2) Where the Court is satisfied (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the Plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the Plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or abandon such part of a claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of a claim". (3) and (4) omitted. 4. it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the Plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or abandon such part of a claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of a claim". (3) and (4) omitted. 4. It has been held in a full Bench Case Abdul Ghafoor v. Abdul Rahman 1951 A.W.R. (H.C.) 576 that: The words "sufficient grounds" in Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) of the CPC cover grounds analogous to those mentioned in Rule 1(2)(a). If the court purports to exercise discretion under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b) but the grounds are not analogous to the defects referred to in Clause (a) the decision even though judicial can be interfered with u/s 115 of the Code. (head-note). 5. The order of the court does not disclose whether the court a lowed the application for withdrawal on the ground given in Order 23, Rule 1(2)(a) or on the grounds given in Order 23, Rule 1(2)(o). The applicant has mentioned a number of grounds in his application. It is not possible to ascertain from the order of the court which of the grounds given in the application by the applicant was relied on by the court. The court has also not considered whether anyhow the grounds stated in the application of the applicant constitute a formal defect as contemplated in Order 23 Rule 1(2)(a) or a defect analogous to a formal defect as contemplated by Order 23, Rule 1(2)(b). 6. In this connection, learned Counsel for the applicant has also invited my attention to a decision of this Court Riazuddin v. Sajid Husain 1944 A.W.R. (H.C.) 161 (1), in which it was held that: An order under Order XXIII, Rule 1, must be a self-contained order in that it must contain the facts, in sufficient detail, to enable a court to know the case of the parties, the lacuna which is the immediate cause of the application for withdrawal and the reasons of the Judge for holding that a case within the meaning of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC has been made out." (head-note) The order of the trial court does not contain any of the above ingredients which an order under Order 23, Rule 1, should contain. 7. 7. On behalf of the applicant, it is contended that there was no formal defect in the suit, nor was there any defect analogous to a formal defect. There were, therefore, no sufficient grounds for allowing the application for withdrawal. In view of the fact that I propose to remand the case to the trial court for writing a proper order, I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. I, therefore, allow this revision application, set aside the order of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for writing a proper order according to law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.