MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. This revision is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 72 of 1991 filed against the Trial Court's order made on his I. A. VI filed under Order 23, Rule 1 of the civil Procedure Code, in the following terms : "plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit without any liberty to file a fresh suit and hence the suit is dismissed. " ( 2 ) THE said l. A. VI was made by the plaintiff in his O. S. No. 72 of 1991 praying for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. ( 3 ) ON consideration of the pleadings, the trial Court was of the opinion that permission to withdraw the suit could be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff but not the permission to file a fresh suit. " ( 4 ) THIS Court in the case of Bhutha v. Baburao, has quoted with approval, the ruling of High Court of Madras in Thadi Konda veeraswami v. Thulium Peda Lakshmudu and ors. , and proceeded to lay down the proposition as quoted hereinbelow : ( 5 ) I find considerable force in the contention of Mr. Cheluvaraju. In Veeraswami's case (supra), it is observed as follows : "where a plaintiff files a petition to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter, under Order 23, Rule 1 (2 ). the court has got the right to dismiss the petition telling him that he might withdraw the suit if he wants but that it will not give him permission to file a fresh suit regarding the same subject-matter. The Court cannot divide the petition into two and accept the withdrawal and refuse the liberty in the same order. " ( 6 ) SIMILAR is the view expressed by K. N. Wanchoo, CJ in Naru v. Mt. Noji. It is held therein as follows :"if a plaintiff merely desires to withdraw a suit all he has to do is to make an application under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23. But where he applies under sub-rule (2) what he wants is that he should be permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to institute a fresh suit. But where he applies under sub-rule (2) what he wants is that he should be permitted to withdraw the suit with permission to institute a fresh suit. Therefore, when an application is made under sub-rule (2), it is not open to the court to treat it as if it is an application under sub-rule (1) without any condition and to grant the prayer for withdrawal and refuse the prayer for permission to bring a fresh suit. The prayer under subrule (2) must be treated as one whole and the Court may either reject the entire prayer, or allow the entire prayer i. e. . permit the withdrawal of the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The reason is that if the Court grants him the permission to withdraw but refuses the permission to institute a fresh suit, the result would be that the plaintiff would be deprived of carrying on with the suit as best as he can and would also not be permitted to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It was not the intention of the Legislature that the plaintiff should be put to this loss by breaking up the prayer for withdrawal with permission to file a fresh suit about the same subject-matter into two parts. " ( 7 ) I respectfully agree with the above cited two decisions and hold that, the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Sagar, is not sustainable in law. He ought to have either rejected the application I. A. III as a whole or granted it as a whole, He could not have split up the application and grant a part of it and reject the remaining. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, in the light of the above legal proposition laid down by the Court, it is not open for the learned trial Judge to dissect the prayer of the plaintiff in his I. A. VI and to allow it in part only by its impugned order. Either the prayer in the application had to be accepted by it in toto or it was to be rejected in its entirely. In that view of the legal position, the matter requires to be remitted to him to dispose of the plaintiff's I. A. VI in accordance with law. ( 9 ) HENCE, the revision petition is allowed. Either the prayer in the application had to be accepted by it in toto or it was to be rejected in its entirely. In that view of the legal position, the matter requires to be remitted to him to dispose of the plaintiff's I. A. VI in accordance with law. ( 9 ) HENCE, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18th August, 1998 of the Court below made on petitioner's I. A. VI in O. S. No. 72 of 1991 is set aside and the matter is remitted to it with a direction to dispose of LA. VI afresh according to law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Revision petition allowed. --- *** --- .