JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division Faizabad, recommending that the revision against the order dated December 10, 1970 passed by the Judicial Officer (Rev.), Akbarpur, district Faizabad, in Case No. 325/1664/362/29 under Sec. 229-B, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. Shivlagan Singh had filed a suit against the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha Daulatabad seeking declaration of his groveholder's rights in plot No. 1359 and 1363. The plots in question are recorded as banjar in the Khatauni. The suit was contested by the U.P. State as well as Ram Harakh, Ramhit and Ramdhani, who were impleaded on their own application. Issues were framed on October 14, 1969. The documentary evidence of both the sides was filed. The oral evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on July 14, 1970 and August 18, 1970. The oral evidence of the defendants was recorded on November 10, 1970. Thereafter the plaintiff took a number of adjournments for various reasons. The case was fixed for arguments on December 10, 1970. On December 10, 1970, the plaintiff moved the following application: "In the above noted case the case was fixed for arguments but due to certain legal complication arisen in the court the petitioner does not want to proceed with the case. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to withdraw the case with liberty to file a fresh suit." The trial court ordered that the suit may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on payment of costs of suit including Rs. 5/- as pleader's fee to the defendants. Ramdhani, Ram Harakh and Ramhit have come up in revision against this order. 4. 5/- as pleader's fee to the defendants. Ramdhani, Ram Harakh and Ramhit have come up in revision against this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the trial court has erred in exercising jurisdiction not vested in it in law, that there was no sufficient cause for withdrawing the suit, that the trial court did not apply its mind to the facts of the case in permitting plaintiff to withdraw the suit without any sound and proper reason, and that the trial of the suit was already concluded and there was no formal defect in the suit. 5. Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaintiff may at any time after the institution of the suit abandon his suit or part of his claim against all or any of the defendants. Sup-rule (3) provides as follows: "(3) Where the Court is satisfied- (a) That a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) That there are 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 such part of the claim with liberty to institute fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim." 6. It will be seen that the trial court does not have the jurisdiction to grant permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit unless the conditions laid down under the above sub-rule are fulfilled. These conditions are, firstly, either there should be a formal defect, or, secondly, sufficient grounds. 7. 'Formal defect' and 'sufficient grounds' have not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, hence their interpretation has been left for the judgment of the Court. But, a trial court must be satisfied that either a formal defect or sufficient grounds exist and must record its satisfaction to this effect before exercising powers under the above sub-rule. 8. 7. 'Formal defect' and 'sufficient grounds' have not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, hence their interpretation has been left for the judgment of the Court. But, a trial court must be satisfied that either a formal defect or sufficient grounds exist and must record its satisfaction to this effect before exercising powers under the above sub-rule. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to Inayat Ali v. Nathu Khan, AIR 1954 Allahabad 18 in which Kaul, J. has observed as follows: "It was held in Abdul Ghafoor v. Abdul Raham, AIR 1951 Allahabad 845 (F.B) following a number of cases of the Oudh Chief Court, that the words 'other sufficient grounds in O. 23, R. 1(2)(b), C.P. Code cover grounds analogous to those mentioned in Rule 1(2)(a). It was further held that if the Court purports to exercise discretion under clause (b) but the grounds are not analogous to the defects referred to in clause (a), the discretion, even though judicial, can be interfered with under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It has been held in a number of cases that if a Court disposes of an application under Order 23 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code without applying its mind to the determination of the question whether the defects referred to as the basis for the prayer to withdrawn the suit are of the character mentioned in Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, its order is without jurisdiction. In the present case the learned Sub-Divisional Officer did not apply his mind to this aspect of the matter. No specific reference was made in the application of May 10, 1951, to any defect on account of which the suit was bound to fail, nor do we find any reference to such defects in the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. In these circumstances, the order granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit is set aside." 9. In Thakurdin v. Jagarnath, 1957 R.D. 197, A.N. Sapru and S.N. Zaheer, J. Ms., have observed as follows: "Permission to withdraw the suit was applied for after the whole case was over. Not only had the oral evidence of the parties closed but even arguments had concluded. These details of the hearing of the case have been given by the Additional Commissioner in his order of reference. Not only had the oral evidence of the parties closed but even arguments had concluded. These details of the hearing of the case have been given by the Additional Commissioner in his order of reference. The plaintiff's application for withdrawal states no specific grounds whatsoever for wanting withdrawal of the suit and permission to file a fresh suit. The only ground which it states for desiring withdrawal is that the suit is bad because of some legal and factual defects. What are the legal and factual defects are has not been made clear in the least. It is not merely the plaintiff who failed to disclose any reasons worth consideration in his application for withdrawing the suit with permission to institute a fresh suit but the order passed by the trial court allowing withdrawal is also of the most perfunctory kind possible. There is nothing in this order to show that trial court applied its mind in the best to the question whether the finding of a fresh suit should be permitted or not. "The court had no power independently of Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C. to allow the suit to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit. Permission to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh suit can only be granted in accordance with Order XXIII, rule 1(a) where a suit must fail be reason of some formal defect or (b) where there are other sufficient grounds for permitting the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. A formal defect is a defect which, according to the consensus of opinion, does not affect the merits of the case." A similar view has been taken in Medhai v. Ambika Tiwari, 1973 R.D. 258. 10. The position is thus fully established that the powers under sub-rule(3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised by a Court loosely. The sub-rule cannot be used as a medium for harassing the defendants in unnecessary litigation by an unscrupulous plaintiff. The court before exercising powers under this sub-rule must specify what the formal defect in the suit is. If no formal defect is established, the Court must record what grounds exist which are sufficient for allowing the whole process of litigation being started afresh. The court before exercising powers under this sub-rule must specify what the formal defect in the suit is. If no formal defect is established, the Court must record what grounds exist which are sufficient for allowing the whole process of litigation being started afresh. Where all the contesting parties have been given sufficient and prolonged opportunity to produce their entire oral and documentary evidence, and the case is fixed for arguments, the proper thing is that the parties must argue the case and allow the trial court to record a judgment. The aggrieved parties may thereafter seek their remedy in appeal or revision. If the court finds that there are still sufficient grounds for exercising the powers under this sub-rule, it must record what those sufficient grounds are. In the present case, the trial court has not cared to record what the sufficient grounds are. The learned Additional Commissioner has correctly found that there is neither a formal defect nor are sufficient grounds in this case and the impugned order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. 11. Agreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.