JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The Title Suit No. 15(T) of.2005 along with Misc. Case No. 52(T) of 2005, was filed by the present Respondent No. 1 for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the present Petitioners claiming that the suit land was purchased by the Respondents/Plaintiffs from one Smt. Bindu Lama, proforma Defendant No. 5 by executing the registered deed on 3.2.2005. The present Petitioners contested the suit as Defendants. Subsequently, present Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed the petition No. 33 of 2006 on 18.4.2006 for withdrawal of the suit and the Misc. Case with liberty to file a fresh suit by aforesaid Smt. Bindu Lama, as she had come back from Kathmandu, Nepal to Shillong and she is now capable of filing the case by herself against the present Petitioners. The said petition was allowed by the learned-court of Assistant to D.C., Shillong by an order dated 18.4.2006. This order, according to the present Petitioner, was passed without issuing any notice to them and by manipulating the records of the case and changing the dates by rubbing with white fluid and with mala fide and ulterior motive. The said Smt. Bindu Lama in terms of the impugned order detect 18.4.2006 filed a fresh suit which was registered as Ejectment Suit No. 31(3) of 2006 in which the learned Assistant to D.C. vide an order dated 7.7.2006 granted ad-interim injunction ex-parte restraining the present Petitioners, from carrying on any activities within the suit land such as construction/erection of any structures, cutting, and cleaning of pigs, etc. 2. Aggrieved by both these orders, the Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the same. 3. Heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned senior Counsel assistant by Mr. L. Lyngdoh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. None appears for the Respondents. 4. Mr. 2. Aggrieved by both these orders, the Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the same. 3. Heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned senior Counsel assistant by Mr. L. Lyngdoh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. None appears for the Respondents. 4. Mr. Jindal, learned senior Counsel submits that on 7.3.2006, the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed an application No. 33 of 2006 stating, inter alia, that the Title Suit No. 15(T) of 2005 was filed on the strength of sale deed and power of attorney executed by the Respondent No. 2 (Smt. Bindu Lama) and since Bindu Lama has come back to Shillong and she intends to file the suit on her own and in view thereof it was prayed that she may be allowed to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit by Respondent No. 2 who was impleaded as proforma Defendant No. 5 in Title Suit No. 15(T) of 2005. It is submitted by Mr. Jindal that no copy of the aforesaid application was served on the Petitioner and the application dated, i.e., 7.3.2006 was rubbed with whitening fluid and instead the same was re-written as 18.4.2006. The learned senior Counsel submits that the said application was taken up on 18.4.2006 without issuing any notice and without furnishing copy of the same and the learned court of Assistant to P.C. allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 18.4.2006 recording that the Defendants-were absent on that day. 5. The further submission of Mr. Jindal is that on the strength of the impugned order dated 18.4.2006, the Respondent No. 2, Smt. Bindu Lama filed an ejectment suit No. 31(T) of 2006 on 7.7.2006 against the Petitioner for declaration/confirmation of right, title, interest and for ejectment of the Petitioners from the suit land and for a declaration against the Petitioners to hand over peaceful possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction. The said Bindu Lama also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. The said Bindu Lama also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 81(T) of 2006 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Petitioners or any other person/persons acting through or under them, from entering into the suit land for construction/erection of any structure within the suit land for cutting and cleaning of pigs and from any other activities within the suit land or from interfering with the Respondent No. 2 in any manner with regard to the suit land pending disposal of the Title Suit. On the same day, i.e., 7.7.2006, the learned court of Assistant to D.C. without following the procedure under Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure granted ex parte ad-interim injunction order in favour, of the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Jindal that although the injunction order was passed on 7.7.2006, the notice of injunction was signed by the court only on 1L7.2006. 6. I have carefully perused the relevant records. The application for withdrawal of Title Suit No. 15(T) of 2005 filed by the Plaintiff is dated 7.3.2006 on which there is no overwriting. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 33 of 2006 on 18.4.2006. The figure "18" is written in red ink over a corrected figure by using white correcting fluid. The original date of receipt or registration of the said application is not legible but it is found clear that the figure "18" is a spurious insertion by red ink pen without any initial of the official but made such interpolation/correction. As per order sheet, on 1.12.2005, both the parties were absent without steps and fixed 20.2.2006 for filing written statement. On 20.2.2006, the learned Court of Assistant to D.C. passed certain orders but the same were completely wiped out by a rubbing white correcting fluid rendering the original order illegible and wrote a new order thereon recording presence of the parties in the court by hazira and fixing 28.4.2006 for filing written statement. The figure "28" was again corrected by correcting it as "18" by overwriting "1" on "2". Thus, the impugned order was passed by the learned Court of Assistant to D.C. on 18.7.2006 in absence of the Petitioners/Defendants. 7. The figure "28" was again corrected by correcting it as "18" by overwriting "1" on "2". Thus, the impugned order was passed by the learned Court of Assistant to D.C. on 18.7.2006 in absence of the Petitioners/Defendants. 7. What transpires from the aforesaid manipulation is that a mischief was played at the instance of vested interest with ah ill motive behind the back of the Petitioners/Defendants so as to keep them in darkness about the next date and ensure their absence and obtain an order in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. It happened exactly so and, thus, the impugned order dated 18.4.2006 happened to be passed. 8. Apart from passing of the impugned order in a doubtful manner the question requiring examination by this Court is whether the learned Court of Assistant to D.C. is authorized to pass such an order allowing the Respondents/Plaintiff to withdraw the plaint with liberty to file a fresh plaint by some other person who was joined as proforma-Respondents in the original Title Suit. If it is found that the learned Assistant to D.C. is not authorized under the law to pass such an order, the subsequent impugned order dated 7.7.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 81(T) of 2006 in ejectment Suit No. 31(T) of 2006 granting ex parte ad-interim injunction against the Petitioners would also be rendered illegal and non est in the eye of law and it would be liable to be quashed. 9. The Plaintiff may withdraw a suit or abandon part of claim at any time after the institution of the suit as against all or any of the Defendants. Order 23, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure gives power to the court to allow the Plaintiff at any time to withdraw the suit unconditionally or to withdraw from the suit on fulfillment of certain conditions. It is the established rule that where a Plaintiff wants to withdraw the plaint or abandon any part of his claim, no application for seeking the leave of the court is required; a mere statement to that affect by the Plaintiff before the court would be sufficient. It is the established rule that where a Plaintiff wants to withdraw the plaint or abandon any part of his claim, no application for seeking the leave of the court is required; a mere statement to that affect by the Plaintiff before the court would be sufficient. The court may act upon the information received by it regarding Plaintiff's desire to withdraw the suit or abandon any part of the claim but such leave or permission of the court would be required when the Plaintiff wants to file a fresh suit in respect of the abandoned claim. In other words, it is the rule that when the Plaintiff or any party desires to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, he must apply to the court under Order 23, Rule 1(3), Code of Civil Procedure and must satisfy the conditions mentioned in the said rule. The Apex Court in the case of Hulas Rai v. K.B. Bass & Co., AIR 1968 SC 111 held that the language of Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule 1, gives an unqualified right to Plaintiff to withdraw from the suit if no permission to file a fresh suit is sought under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 1 and there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which requires the court to refuse permission to withdraw the suit in such circumstances and to compel the Plaintiff to proceed with it. The position would be different in the cases where the set off has been claimed under Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or counter claim has been filed. 10. From the present case the Respondent-Plaintiff filed application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh petition not by himself but by other person who was not one of the Plaintiffs but a proforma-Defendant who executed power of attorney in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. The learned Court of Assistant to the D.C. did not consider whether such an application could be entertained under; the existing provision of Code of Civil Procedure. The court must consider where there are some formal defects in the suit which would lead to its failure or there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the Plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. The court must consider where there are some formal defects in the suit which would lead to its failure or there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the Plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim. The application filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs discloses none of these reasons as contemplated under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision is quoted below: (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. From the aforesaid provision it is crystal clear that a court is not authorized to allow withdrawal of the suit in the manner done by the court of Assistant to the D.C. 12. The present case is not even a case of substitution or, addition of Plaintiff as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not pleaded in the application for withdrawal of suit that the Title Suit in question was instituted in the name of a wrong person as Plaintiff or there exists a doubt that it was instituted in the name of the right Plaintiff or it was instituted through a bona fide mistake and it is necessary to substitute or add any other person, for the determination of the real matter in dispute. 13. Having perused the relevant records, I am satisfied that the manipulations as alleged by the Petitioners have taken place leading to passing of the impugned order dated 18.4.2006. As discussed above there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure to allow the Plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit by a person who was not one of the Plaintiffs but joined as a proforma Defendant in the earlier suit. This being the position, the impugned order dated 18.4.2006 cannot stand and accordingly it is liable to be quashed. This being the position, the impugned order dated 18.4.2006 cannot stand and accordingly it is liable to be quashed. The other impugned order dated 7.7.2006 granting ex parte ad-interim injunction cannot be maintained inasmuch as the ejectment suit No. 31(T) of 2006 cannot be entertained under the existing provision of Code of Civil Procedure. This impugned order dated 7.7.2006 is non est in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 18.4.2006 and 7.7.2006 aforementioned are quashed. Petition stands allowed. 15. In the result, Title Suit No. 15(T) of 2005 shall stand revived and the Respondent/Plaintiff is allowed to prosecute the same, if he so desires, as if the said Title Suit was never withdrawn and the Petitioners/Defendants would also contest the same and the learned trial court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the Title Suit as expeditiously as possible for the ends of Justice. 16. Needless to say that the Ejectment Suit No. 31(T) of 2006 along with Misc. Case No. 52(T) of 2005 shall stand closed. The interim order, if any, passed in the ejectment suit and the connected miscellaneous case shall also stand vacated. 17. Send down the LCR forthwith. Petition allowed