withdraw the suit. The learned District Munsif also relied upon the decisions in the case of A.P.S.Bahurudeen and another v. Antony and two others, (1992)1 L.W. 100 and in the case of K.Chinna Vaira Thevar v. Vaira Thevar, A.I.R. 1983 Mad. 160. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts in those two citations are not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as liberty to file a fresh suit was contemplated in those two citations and in the present case, such a liberty was not sought for. The plea of liberty to file a fresh suit was specifically dealt with under O.23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code and inasmuch as such a liberty was not asked for, learned counsel has submitted that the refusal to grant permission to withdraw the suit is incorrect. 5. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in the case of Esanya Madalayam Religious Institution v. Tiruvannamalai Sevasramam Educational Trust, (1999)2 M.L.J. 360 , where a similar question under O.23, Rule 1(3) (b) of the Civil Procedure Code was dealt with and it was held that even if there is any formal defect, the withdrawal can be modified to the effect that no liberty for filing fresh suit can be admitted i.e., to say, without the liberty to file a fresh suit, the suit can be permitted to withdraw even if there is any formal defect. This observation outweights the ground of the learned District Munsif in refusing the permission. 6. Similar question for withdrawal was involved in the case of Perumayee v. Arumugam, (2003)1 M.L.J. 537 , where after filing the suit for bare injunction, the suit property was alienated during the tendency of the suit and subsequently comprehensive suit filed by the same plaintiff was permitted after withdrawal of the earlier suit. It was held that at any time after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff can abandon his suit or part of his claim. In that case also, permission was granted without any liberty to file a subsequent suit with the same cause of action. 7. Similar issue was dealt with in the case of A.D.S.Joshi v. Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council, A.I.R. 2003 Bom. 238 by holding that every plaintiff has right to withdraw his suit unconditionally. In that case also, permission was granted without any liberty to file a subsequent suit with the same cause of action. 7. Similar issue was dealt with in the case of A.D.S.Joshi v. Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council, A.I.R. 2003 Bom. 238 by holding that every plaintiff has right to withdraw his suit unconditionally. Since the liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or outside the said cause of action was never asked for in this case, there is no impediment in granting permission to withdraw the suit entirely against defendants 3 to 5 and partially in respect of suit item No.2 in so far as it relates to declaratory relief. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the above C.M.P. is dismissed as unnecessary.