ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the civil revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the CPC) the plaintiffs-petitioners have assailed the order dated 25-3-96 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Begamgunj in Civil Suit No. 1 -A/94 whereby he has dismissed the application of the present petitioners under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC seeking withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to institute a fresh suit. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioners instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from raising construction of the road over the suit land. According to the plaintiffs they are the owners in possession of the suit land which is a part of the Khasra Nos. 6 and 7 and the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the land in question. 3. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs contending, inter alia, that the suit land is not a part of Khasra Nos. 6 and 7 but is a part of Khasra Nos. 4.5/1 and 4.5/2 which belongs to them as the same has been gifted to them by the actual owner on 14-12-90. It has been putforth in the revision petition that to ascertain whether the suit land in the part of Khasra Nos. 4.5/1 and 4.5/2 as sledged by the defendants, plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application before the revenue authorities for demarcation of the boundaries of the suit land. The demarcation though has been done, is not in accordance with the field situation as boundaries of Khasra Nos. 6 and 7 have not been kept in view. The plaintiffs have raised an objection before the revenue authorities. It is also setforth that the plaintiffs also filed an application before the trial Court under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC for demarcation of the suit land by appointing a Commissiner. When the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit after getting the demarcation done correctly as per the field situation. When the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit after getting the demarcation done correctly as per the field situation. The aforesaid application was resisted by the contesting defendants and after hearing the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiffs on the ground that the said suit was linked up with another suit wherein some of the defendants were not parties and the trial of that suit has progressed substantially and hence the prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was devoid of substance. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionists. 4. Assailing the impugned order it is submitted by Mr. Dinesh Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court has erred in law in refusing to grant leave to withdraw the suit on the ground that the defendants No. 3 and 4 are not parties to the suit and the same is connected with another suit. It is his further submission that the order of rejection clearly demonstrates that the Court below has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in him and that warrants interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Combating the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pramod Verma, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there has been substantial progress in the suit No. 31 A/93 which has been linked up with the present suit; the grounds putforth for withdrawal of the suit are not germane and do not satisfy requirement of the provision and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application. 5. This Court, to appreciate the entire scenario, had passed an order on 2-9-97 requiring the learned counsel for the petitioners to obtain instructions as to whether the evidence of the plaintiffs in the present suit as well as in Civil suit No. 31 -A/93 has been recorded and the case has been closed or not. On further consideration by order dated 8-9-97 the records of both the suits were called for. On a perusal of the ordersheet it is noticed that the suit filed by the present petitioners has been connected with the Civil Suit No. 31 -A/93. On further consideration by order dated 8-9-97 the records of both the suits were called for. On a perusal of the ordersheet it is noticed that the suit filed by the present petitioners has been connected with the Civil Suit No. 31 -A/93. In the said suit the plaintiffs evidence is complete and some of the witnesses from the side of the defendants have also been examined. From the ordersheet it also appears that the demarcation file has also been called for. On a perusal of the application of withdrawal it is seen that because of erroneous demarcation in respect of the suit properties the plaintiffs have sought for withdrawal of the suit. To appreciate the crux of the matter it is apposite to reproduce to the grounds mentioned in the petition for withdrawal of the suit: 6. The core question that falls for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in refusing to grant leave to the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit in view of the ground mentioned therein. To appreciate the situation, I may usefully refer to order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC which reads as under: (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 a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite perceptible that Court has to be satisfied that the suit must fail because of some formal defects or in the alternative there has to be sufficient grounds to allow the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit. In the case at hand, the question of formal defect does not arise. The plaintiffs are required to satisfy that there are sufficient grounds to permit them to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. In the case at hand, the question of formal defect does not arise. The plaintiffs are required to satisfy that there are sufficient grounds to permit them to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. It is to be borne in mind that under Order 23 Rule 1 a plaintiff has the absolute right to withdraw the suit or abondon his claim but an application under sub-rule (3; stands in a different footing as a plaintiff seeks withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. To avail the benefit of the said provision it is incumbent on the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that the good grounds exist for withdrawal of the suit for grant of liberty to file a fresh suit. The sufficiency of ground would include many factors such as the germaneness of the grounds putforth in the petition, the progress of the suit, the prejudice likely to be caused to the defendants and other ansillary and relevant concomitant factors. The obligation is on the plaintiffs to satisfy the Court that the requirements of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) are satisfied. The Court granting leave has no absolute discretion but has to satisfy itself with regard to the condition-precedent. The plaintiff must show that the requirement of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of CPC are satisfied. This view of mine gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of A.V.S. Perumal Vs. Vadivelu Asari, AIR 1986. Mad 341. it is to be kept in mind that the sufficient grounds do not include the possibility of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to prove his case. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision renderd in the case of Charles J. Wills and others Vs. The Central Railway Company of Canada, AIR 1914 PC 249 wherein their Lordships have opined that it cannot be a matter of right that a plaintiff having put in issue damages already accrued and having attempted to prove them and failed should be at liberty to bring a fresh action in respect of them. 7. In the case of Chakra Barik and others Vs. Mst. Jema Biswal and another, AIR 1977 Ori 63 report of the Commissioner was objected to by the plaintiff but it was accepted. The plaintiff wanted a second Commissioner to be taken through but the prayer was not accepted. 7. In the case of Chakra Barik and others Vs. Mst. Jema Biswal and another, AIR 1977 Ori 63 report of the Commissioner was objected to by the plaintiff but it was accepted. The plaintiff wanted a second Commissioner to be taken through but the prayer was not accepted. Challenge to the said order in revision did not meet with success. The revisional court only observed that it was open to the plaintiff to take a Commissioner of her own and examine as a withness. When the plaintiff applied to the trial Court, the Court declined to adjourn the matter. At that juncture, a petition for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit was filed. The application for withdrawal was allowed. Setting aside the order, their Lordships held as under: This is no ground for asking for withdrawal of a suit. It is sufficient to refer to two authorities on the point : (1986) 32 CLT 864 (Dwarka Vs. Mst. Sashiprabha Gountianl) and AIR 1956 Bom 632 (Rarachand Vs. Baibihaji). The order allowing withdrawal with liberty to file a suit on the same cause of action is, therefore, bound to be vacated. From the aforesaid it is graphically clear that a trial de novo is not to be lightly granted to enable the plaintiff to come prepared to fight afresh legal battle. In a case where a plaintiff realises that there has been no cause of action, the matter would be different. If the suit is premature, the plaintiff may be granted permission to withdraw the same to file after the lis ripens. But in the case at hand, as is apparent, the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw the suit to come with a body of fresh evidence to putforth his case. Such a prayer of the plaintiffs is not permissible. In fact, it would amount to the abuse of the process of law. Quite apart from the above, it is to be kept in mind that the suits have been linked and there has been substantial progress in one suit. Considering the factual matrix in entirety, I am of the humble view that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference. 8. Resultantly, the Civil Revision, being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed