JUDGMENT : C.V. Jani, J. 1. These two Revision Applications arise from two different but similar orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli on 13.2.1989 permitting the opponents-plaintiffs to withdraw their suits with certain directions. 2. Civil Revision Application No. 685 of 1989 rises from the order below withdrawal pursis Exh. 31 in Regular Civil Suit No. 529 of 1986, while Civil Revision Applications No. 886 of 1989 arises from a similar order passed by the same Civil Judge on-that very date in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1987. Both the suits had been filed by the opponents in the respective Revision Applications for a declaration that the interviews held by the defendant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation for the posts of conductors be declared as null and void. In these suits, applications were submitted for interim relief restraining the defendant-Corporation from giving employment to any conductor during the pendency of the suit on the ground that though they had made applications for being appointed as conductors, they were not called for interview in view of the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or the Social Welfare Officer. 3. On 13.2.1989, the plaintiffs submitted pursis for withdrawal of the suits on condition that the plaintiffs are called for the proposed new interviews. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli accepted this condition and permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw their suits. These orders passed by the learned Civil Judges (S.D.), Amreli passed in two different suits on 13.2.1989 are being challenged in these Revision Applications. The point involved in both the matters being the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. It is submitted by Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the Revision petitioners that the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli are not warranted by any provision of law. The Court could have either permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw their suits unconditionally or could have granted such permission to withdraw from such suits with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter as per provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The Rule does not provide for passing any order of conditional permission to withdraw. 5. Mr. The Rule does not provide for passing any order of conditional permission to withdraw. 5. Mr. Desai's submission is quite justified Rule 1 of Order XXIII of Civil Procedure Code enables the plaintiff to abandon his suit or a part of his claim. Rule 3 enables the Court to grant to the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter, if it is satisfied that the 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 same subject matter. The conditional permission granted in the instant case by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) is not warranted by the aforesaid provisions of law. The orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), permitting the withdrawal of the suits on condition that the plaintiffs should be called for interviews for the posts of conductors are, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction and require to be set aside. 6. About five years have passed after the impugned orders were passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.). The Revision Applications against the impugned orders were admitted, but no interim relief was granted, so the applicant-defendant Corporation might have called the opponents for interviews held during the intervening period of five years. If they are selected in the interview, they would be eligible for appointments as conductors. Neither, Mr. P.G. Desai for the applicants nor Mr. R.D. Rawal appearing for the opponents is able to throw any light on the subsequent developments in spite of sufficient time having been granted to them to make necessary inquiry. In fact, the proceeding has been a dead horse. Technically however, as the impugned orders are required to be set aside, these Revision Applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute in each of the Revision Applications with no order as to costs. Revisions allowed.