ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order, dated 3-10-2002, of the Court below, dismissing the application in I. A. No. 655 of 2000 in O. S. No. 283 of 2000, as not pressed, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs in O. S. No. 283 of 2000. The suit is filed for declaration of plaint schedule property as public property and for declaration of plaintiffs management over the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. ( 3 ) LA. No. 655 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction 1 restraining the defendants and their men from in any way entering into the schedule kalyanamandapam either on the guise of election or on the guise of any bogus association and from interfering with their peaceful possession and management of plaint schedule property. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioners is that when the respondents with a view to protract the litigation wanted to lead oral evidence in the application in I. A. No. 655 of 2000, they filed three applications in IA. Nos. 677, 678 and 679 of 2000 in O. S. Nos. 105, 177 and 283 of 2000 respectively for clubbing all the above three suits for the purpose of recording the evidence and the said applications were allowed by the Court below by a common order, dated 12-2-2001, clubbing all the three suits and directing to record the evidence in OS no. 283 of 2000, as the subject matter of all the three suits is one and the same. The evidence on behalf of the respondents was commenced on 1-3-2001 and closed on 1 -10-2001. After examining RW1, on behalf of the petitioners, the respondents started playing tactics. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application in IA No. 19 of 2002 to treat the evidence in IA No. 665 of 2000 in OS No. 283 of 2000 as the evidence in the said three suits by way of abundant caution. The respondents have examined pws. l to 3 and marked more than 240 documents on their behalf. Though the chief- examination of RW. l was over as early as on 8-3-2002, the respondents without cross- examining RW1 obtained 9 adjournments dragging the matters for over six months. The respondents have examined pws. l to 3 and marked more than 240 documents on their behalf. Though the chief- examination of RW. l was over as early as on 8-3-2002, the respondents without cross- examining RW1 obtained 9 adjournments dragging the matters for over six months. Thereafter, since the respondents have changed their Counsel and since the new Counsel engaged by them filed vakalath on 13-9-2002, the matters were posted to 19-9-2002 and again to 19-9-2002 for cross- examination of RW 1 as a last chance. At this stage, the respondents without filing any memo or an application got dismissed ia No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondents filed IA No. 1450 and 1524 of 2002 in OS Nos. 177 and 283 of 2000 respectively seeking withdrawal of the said suits with liberty to file fresh suits in which the petitioners have filed counters and the said applications are posted for orders to 2-12-2002. In view of the common order, dated 12-2-2001, in IA Nos. 677, 678 and 679 of 2000 in OS Nos. 105, 177 and 283 of 2000 respectively, clubbing all the three suits for the purpose of evidence and also filing of an application in LA No. 19 of 2002, to treat the evidence recorded in ia No. 655 of 2000 as that of the evidence in the suits, as early as on 3-1-2002, the court below should not have dismissed the same as not pressed. The intention of the respondents to withdraw IA No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed and filing LA Nos. 1450 and 1524 of 2002 seeking withdrawal of OS Nos. 177 and 283 of 2000 is only to nullify the entire evidence on record and if the said suits are allowed to withdraw, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No. 655 of 2000 in OS no. 283 of 2000, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. ( 5 ) ON 29-11-2002, this Court, while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in os No. 283 of 2000 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Cuddapah district, for a period of six months, which was extended up to 31-1-2003. 283 of 2000, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. ( 5 ) ON 29-11-2002, this Court, while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in os No. 283 of 2000 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Cuddapah district, for a period of six months, which was extended up to 31-1-2003. Now, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit to vacate the interim stay granted by this court on 29-11-2002. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the 1st respondent-society (for short "the society") was duly registered in the year 1976 and purchased Ac. 0-19 cents of land in Proddatur in the year 1977 under a registered sale deed. The allegations that a separate Committee has been formed for construction and management of kalyanamandapam and that the persons representing the society have started construction of Markandeya temple and attempted to demolish a part of kalyanamandapam are denied. In order to takeover and usurp the management, the petitioners filed OS No. 105 of 2000 before the Court below and obtained status quo order in LA No. 284 of 2000 on 20-3-2000. When the members of newly formed society attempted to appoint a Convenor to conduct elections, the respondents were constrained to file OS No. 283 of 2000 along with an application in IA No. 655 of 2000 for declaration that they are entitled to manage the Kalyanmandapam and for interim injunction respectively. Since no interim injunction was granted and since the respondents have been advised by a senior Counsel and also in view of the interim injunction granted in favour of petitioners in IA No. 284 of 2000 in OS no. 105 of 2000, in order to shorten the litigation and to proceed with the trial of the suits or to withdraw the same, filed by the respondents, only in order to file a comprehensive suit, they requested the court below to dismiss LA No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed. Since the petitioners have filed IA No. 1985 of 2001 to dismissed ia No. 655 of 2000 in OS No. 283 of 2000, they have no locus standi to question the impugned order. Since the petitioners have filed IA No. 1985 of 2001 to dismissed ia No. 655 of 2000 in OS No. 283 of 2000, they have no locus standi to question the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 3-10-2002, dismissing IA No. 655 of 2000 in OS No. 283 of 2000 as not pressed would not amount to deciding the case and it will not affect the issues involved in the suit in any manner. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the intention of respondents to withdraw IA No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed and thereafter filing IA Nos. 1450 and 1524 of 2002 seeking withdrawal of OS nos. 177 and 283 of 2000 is only to nullify the entire evidence on record and if the said suits are allowed to withdraw, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 3-10-2002, passed by the Court below dismissing IA No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed, without filing any memo or any application by the respondents and without recording any reasons and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that since the respondents have been advised by a Senior Counsel and also in view of the interim injunction granted in favour of petitioners in IA No. 284 of 2000 in OS No. 105 of 2000, in order to shorten the litigation and to proceed with the trial of the suits or to withdraw the same, filed by the respondents, only in order to file a comprehensive suit, they requested the court below to dismiss IA No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed. He further submits that since there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. ( 9 ) AS seen from the impugned order, the Court below has simply allowed the respondents to withdraw IA No. 655 of 2000 in OS No. 283 of 2000 as not pressed. It is clear from the record that the evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was closed and the matter was posted for cross-examination of RW1. Instead of cross-examining RW1, the respondents have taken 9 adjournments dragging the matter nearly for a period of more than six months. It is clear from the record that the evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was closed and the matter was posted for cross-examination of RW1. Instead of cross-examining RW1, the respondents have taken 9 adjournments dragging the matter nearly for a period of more than six months. Further, without invoking the provisions of Order XXIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by filing a memo or an application, the respondents have simply requested the court below to dismiss IA No. 655 of 2000 as not pressed and accordingly the Court below dismissed the said application as not pressed. Since the petitioners have spent so much of time and money for contesting the matter in OS No. 283 of 2000, filed by the respondents, certainly prejudice would be caused to them when IA No. 655 of 2000 was dismissed as not pressed. Further, since the temporary injunction in IA no. 284 of 2000 in OS No. 105 of 2000, filed by the petitioners, was granted against the respondents, presuming that the result in ia No. 655 of 2000 would be against to them, the respondents have requested the court below to dismiss the said application as not pressed. ( 10 ) IT is necessary to look into the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of code of Civil Procedure, which deals with withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. "rule 1: (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim: provided that where the plaintiffs is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in Rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court. (2) x x x x (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. " ( 11 ) A perusal of the provisions of rule 1 (3) of Order XXIII of the Code of civil Procedure, makes it clear that withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim is permitted where the Court is satisfied that a 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 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. ( 12 ) SINCE the respondents without invoking the provisions of Order XXIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have requested the Court below to dismiss IA no. 655 of 2000 as not pressed, and since the court below without recording any reasons and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners had simply passed the impugned order, dated 3-10-2002, in my considered view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order, dated 3-10-2002, is set aside. The Court below is directed to proceed with IA No. 655 of 2000 from the stage at which it was dismissed as not pressed and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.