Judgment : 1. By consent of both the counsel, the main revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. This revision has been filed against the order of dismissing the I.A.No. 507 of 1995 in O.S.No. 188 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif, Jayakondam seeking the relief to withdraw the suit under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 3. The petitioner filed the suit O.S.No. 188 of 1994 against the respondents herein for declaration of his title to the suit property and for consequential relief. After filing the suit, the petitioner has filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, contending that the defendants had filed written statement alleging that there are several sale deeds concerning the suit property in favour of third parties and the alleged sale deeds were not known to him previously, and in order to have a proper and complete adjudication all the purchasers have to be impleaded and hence the leave is sought to withdraw the suit. 4. Respondents herein filed counter-affidavit opposing the same. The lower court by order dated 9. 1995 has dismissed the LA. finding that the averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit are not correct and the petitioner himself was a attesting witness to one of the sale deeds. There are only two sale deeds. Further the application has been filed after the evidence is over. 5. It is admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an attesting witness in respect of the sale in favour of one Thiagarajan. When he himself is an attesting witness, he has stated in the affidavit that he was not aware of the sale deeds previously. This averment is totally false. When the plaintiff is aware about the existence of the sale deeds and has failed to raise the plea with regard to the validity of such sale deeds, it has to be considered that he has done so with open eyes. Moreover, the evidence was over and after assessing the evidence the petitioner has come forward with this application belatedly. When the plaintiff is aware about the existence of the sale deeds and has failed to raise the plea with regard to the validity of such sale deeds, it has to be considered that he has done so with open eyes. Moreover, the evidence was over and after assessing the evidence the petitioner has come forward with this application belatedly. In considering the provision under Order 21 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, Justice M.Srinivasan, has elaborately discussed the matter in his judgment, in A.P.S.Baharudeenand another v. Antony and others, 1991 T.L.N.J. 27, this Court held as follows:- “The sub-rule comprises of two parts. The first part found in sub-rule (3) (a) refers to a suit which must fail by reason of ‘some formal defect’ while the other part in sub-rule (3) .(b) speaks of ‘sufficient grounds’ for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Divergent views have been expressed as to whether ‘sufficient grounds’ found in clause .(b) should be read ejusdem generis with ‘some formal defect’ founds clause (a) or independent of clause (a) of Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. One view is that the words ‘Sufficient Grounds’ have been used by the Legislature ejusdem generis with ‘formal defect’. Another view is that ‘Sufficient grounds’ in sub-rule 3(b) need not be ‘formal defect’ and they must be given a wider meaning and scope. A third view which is in between the two extremes has also been expressed that ‘Sufficient grounds’ should mean grounds analogous to formal defect though not of the same genus. .. An analysis of the above judgments show that it has been generally accepted by the courts that permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit can be granted, if the suit has to fall by reason of formal defect or a ground/analogous thereto. But, Courts are uniform in holding that a plaintiff who has failed to establish his case on merits, is not entitled to as of right to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit. On a reading of the two clauses in sub-rule (3) of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the Legislature has advisedly used a distinctly different language. On a reading of the two clauses in sub-rule (3) of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the Legislature has advisedly used a distinctly different language. While clauses (a) refers to the pending suit which must fail by reason of some formal defect, clause (b) refers to the suit to be instituted with the leave of the court. As a matter fails under clause (a), the Court is concerned only with the question whether the suit must fall by reason of a formal defect. On the other hand, if clause (b) is invoked by a party, then the Court must address itself to the question whether there are sufficient grounds for allowing the party to institute a fresh suit for the same subject-matter or part thereon. Hence, in my view it is not correct to say that ‘sufficient grounds’ should be read ejusdem generis with ‘formal defect or that they should be analogous thereto ‘Sufficient grounds’ would cover a wider field and not restricted to a ‘formal defect’ or a similar defect. However when the question arises before an appellate court after the adjudication of the matter on merits by one court or two courts, the test will be whether the Court is justified in depriving the defendant of the benefit of a finding rendered in his favour after a full trial. It is well known that when a Court grants leave to file a fresh suit on the identical cause of action, the withdrawn suit has no existence in the eye of law.” As held by the learned Judge, if this case is to be considered whether there is any sufficient cause or whether there is any formal defect by which the suit has to fail, I am of the opinion that both the grounds do not exist. The lower court has elaborately discussed the matter in detail and gave a finding that there is no reason to grant permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the court below and hence the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.