( 1 ) THIS Revision petition is by the defendants in Original Suit No. 7 of 1974 on the file of the Third Additional Civil Judge, mysore, and is directed against the order dated 25-8-1976 passed by the said Civil judge permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision- petitioners strenuously urged that the learned Civil Judge has committed breach of Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of the Code of civil Procedure inasmuch as he has given permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action without satisfying himself that the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied on the facts of the present case. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance. Several contentions were taken by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application supported by an affidavit for leave to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This is what is averred in his affidavit:" I, Krishnaiah, the plaintiff in the above case, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows : i have filed the above suit for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the agreement produced therein. The case is contested on various other grounds by the defendants stating that this is a family property which cannot be alienated by the 1st defendant. At present, i am not willing to pursue this matter at this stage and I would like to withdraw the same for the present with the permission of the Honourable Court to file a suit on the same cause of action whenever necessary. I reserve my right to take other pleas as required under law in respect of my transactions with the defendants In view of the above facts, I have been advised not to proceed with the case at this juncture and to withdraw the same. Since the present suit involves some legal effects, it is necessary that it should be withdrawn and a competent and comprehensive suit will have to be filed. Since the present suit involves some legal effects, it is necessary that it should be withdrawn and a competent and comprehensive suit will have to be filed. Wherefore, I pray that in the interest of justice and equity this Honourable Court be pleased to permit me to withdraw the suit without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties to the suit and with permission to file a suit on the same cause of action or any subsequent cause of action regarding the same transaction and pass such other or further orders as the Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. " ( 4 ) THIS was no doubt opposed by the defendants. The learned Civil Judge, however, has, by his order dated 25-8-1974, allowed the said application (I. A. No. VI) and has permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh' suit on the same cause of action. This order is challenged before me contending that the learned Civil Judge has exercised his, jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality. ( 5 ) THE other side, though served, has remained absent. ( 6 ) THE only point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this revision petition is : whether the learned Civil judge acted illegally and exercised his jurisdiction with material Irregularity in permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, ( 7 ) ORDER XXIII, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads :" 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 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 a claim. " ( 8 ) THUS, it is clear that before granting permission, the Court has to be satisfied about the existence of either of the conditions in the facts of the suit. " ( 8 ) THUS, it is clear that before granting permission, the Court has to be satisfied about the existence of either of the conditions in the facts of the suit. There must either be a formal defect due to which the suit is likely to fail or other sufficient ground for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. There is no doubt a controversy with regard to the interpretation of the second sub-clause-whether the words 'other sufficient grounds' should be construed ejusdem generis with 'formal defect' or it should be interpreted independently of clause (a ). ( 9 ) THAT apart, it becomes clear by reading sub-clause (3) to Rule 1 of Order xxiii of the Code of Civil Procedure that the Court has no untrammelled general power to allow a party to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit apart from the two circumstances mentioned in sub-clause (3) to Rule 1 of Order xxiii of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 10 ) WITH this in mind, if we read the affidavait in which the plaintiff has mentioned the cause for the withdrawal of the suit, it becomes clear that he wants to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action because at present he is not willing to pursue the suit. That is because the defe- dants have taken many contentions. IB other words, the only reason given by him in his application to withdraw, supported by the affidavit, is that he is not in a mood to pursue the suit at present and that he wants to do it at his leisure and pleasure at some future date. This obviously doep not satisfy either of the conditions mentioned in Order XXIII, Rule 1 (3) of the code of Civil Procedure. ( 11 ) STRANGELY enough, the learned Civil judge, obviously, without even caring to read the provisions of law, has gulped down the reasons advanced by the plaintiff and has allowed his application. This is what he has stated in paras 7 and 8 of his order :"7. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw the suit as sought for. This is what he has stated in paras 7 and 8 of his order :"7. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw the suit as sought for. The learned Counsel for the defendants 2 to 12 contended that there are no materials for such a permission and that the application is not bona fide. 8. The plaintiff has alleged that at present he does not intend to pursue this suit further and that the defendants have raised several contentions in the defence and that there are legal aspects to be considered. "giving reasons, the learned Civil Judge has stated : ". . . there is no impediment for according such permission. There are no sufficient materials to show that the application is not a bona fide one. " the reasoning advanced by the learned civil Judge would clearly show that he has not cared to look into the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no question of bona fides mentioned in the said provisions and what is mentionod therein is that the Court has to be satis- f ed whether the facts averred by the plaintiff fall within either of the two clauses. Instead of scanning that, the learned Civil judge thinks that there is no impediment for him to allow the application as if he is vested with general and overall powers in the matter of allowing an application for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. He states that there are no sufficient materials to show that the application is not a bona fide one, which is not relevant. Hence, it is obvious that the learned Civil judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. His order, therefore, has to be set aside. ( 12 ) IN the result, therefore, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-8-1976 allowing the plaintiff in original Suit No. 7 of 1974 to withdraw from the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, is hereby set aside. The learned Civil Judge shall now go on with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law from the stage at which the impugned order was passed. The learned Civil Judge shall now go on with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law from the stage at which the impugned order was passed. Since the suit is of the year 1974 the shall expedite the hearing of the suit and try to finish it within a period of six months from to-day. Intimate this order to the learned civil Judge concerned forthwith for enabling him to take the necessary action. No costs. --- *** --- .