1. Application for withdrawal of the suit has earned dismissal, aggrieved thereof instant Revision petition has been filed. 2. The bone of contention in between the parties, is land measuring 11 kanal-5 marlas covered by Survey Nos. 185(3 kanal 1 marlas), 918/355 (3 kanal-13 marlas), 767(4 kanal-7 marlas) & 768 (4 marlas) and half of residential house situated at village Daraw Frestwari, Tehsil Baramulla (hereinafter referred to as suit property) which actually was owned by one Gani Wani s/o Ahad Wani. 3. Said Gani Wani has died issueless, petitioners (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) claim to be his legal heirs and in that capacity claimed to be in possession of the suit property. 4. Alleged interference with their possession by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendant) made plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration and injunc­tion, wherein it is contended that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs (successors) in possession of the suit property, may be declared to be owners. Further more the defendant shall be permanently restrained from causing any sort of interference with their peaceful possession. Name of the defendant in the original plaint has been recorded as Mst. Shahmali w/o Abdul Ahmad Wani. It appears that the defendant has informed the plaintiffs, that she in fact is not the wife of Abdul Ahad Wani, but is the daughter of Abdul Ahad Wani. An application for amendment for correcting the actual particulars of the defendant i.e to show her as daughter of Abdul Ahad Wani, has been permitted by the trial court vide order dated 22.5.2009. 5. Again certain factual situations were noticed, which prompted the plaintiffs to file the application for withdrawal of the suit. In the said application it has been averred, that due to clerical error the designation and description of the defendant has been wrongly and inadvertently written, rendering the suit ambiguous. Both description and designation of the defendant requires correction, so as to put the records straight. 6. Learned trial court while considering the application has opined, that the submission of the plaintiffs to the effect that Shahmali in fact is the daughter of Ahad Malik w/o Mohammad Vousuf Lone R/o Daru Frasthwari Tehsil Baramulla, is not a defect which will result in failure of the suit. Such a defect can be permitted to be corrected by way of table amendment. 7. Such a defect can be permitted to be corrected by way of table amendment. 7. In the Revision petition the actual picture has been narrated, which has prompted the petitioner to file the application for withdrawal of the suit i.e. according to the (plaintiffs) Ahad Wani had only one issue i.e. Gani wani (deceased), who was born from the wedlock of his 1st wife Mst. Khatji. Subsequently Ahad Wani was married to Mst. Saja. At the time of marriage Mst.. Saja had the daughter namely Shahmali (defendant) who was born from the wedlock of Mst. Saja and her 1st husband Ahad Malik, but after marriage with Ahad Wani she carried Shahmali along with, who's status in common parlance is known as "Dukhtari Pichlaka". It is on the said basis, factual position in the plaint has to undergo the-change so an ambiguity which can be rectified only in the pleadings by filing a fresh plaint, wherein such factual position can be detailed. Neither cause of action nor relief clause will get changed. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Beigh was candid in his submission by stating, that Mst. Shahmali in fact is daughter of Ahad Wani. It is not correct, that she is "Pichlaka" and was born from the wedlock of Mst Saja with her earlier husband. Further added that application for withdrawal did not contain the details as have now been incorporated in the Revision petition, therefore, trial court was justified in dismissing the application. 9. Now the important question which emerge for consideration is, as to whether the application for withdrawal falls within the scope of Order 23 Rule 1 Sub Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, said Sub Rule 3 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." 10. 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." 10. Plain reading of the Sub Rule is suggestive of the fact that permission to withdraw and file a fresh suit can be only in two situations. 11. Whether the position of the case as projected is covered by formal defect, answer has to be no. Then question whether there are 'sufficient grounds' so as to persuade the court to permit the withdrawal of the suit, answer has to be in affirmative. The word 'sufficient ground' as occur in Clause-b of Sub Rule 3 has to be liberally construed, because its ultimate object is to advance cause of justice. Formal procedure or factual defects shall not have preference as against the sub­stantial justice. It is to be made clear that, by permitting the withdrawal and liberty to file fresh suit, there should be no prejudice to the rights of the other side. 12. While viewing the case on the touch stone of the principles and while keeping in view the interests of the defendant by allowing the withdrawal of the suit and to permit filing of fresh suit on the grounds as detailed hereinabove, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant nor any accrued or vested right gets defeated. 13. Learned counsel Mr. Beigh, stressed that in fact Mst. Shahrrtali is the daughter of Ahad Wani and she has every right to succeed to the property as left behind by her brother Gani wani, who has died issueless. The (plaintiffs) being remoter in degree have no right to inherit the suit property. 14. The question as to whether Mst. Shahmali is the daughter of Ahad Malik or Ahad Wani, then the question vis-a-vis right of inheritance are the issues to be addressed during the trial of the case. Mst. Shahmali can project her case before the trial court and defend that she is daughter of Ahad Wani, who is bro there of deceased Gani wani, that right is not taken away. 15. Mst. Shahmali can project her case before the trial court and defend that she is daughter of Ahad Wani, who is bro there of deceased Gani wani, that right is not taken away. 15. Keeping in view the scope of order 23 Rule 1 Sub Rule 3(b) of the Code of livil Procedure, withdrawal application has to be allowed and the plaintiffs are to be given liberty to file fresh suit. The factual aspect only to the extent as recorded vereinabove viz-a-viz position of Mst. Shahmali being daughter of Ahad Malik and jeing "Dukhtari Pichlaka" shall be permitted to be incorporated in the subsequent suit as shall be filed afresh. 16. In the final analysis, for avoiding miscarriage of Justice, petition is allowed. Order impugned is setaside. Application for withdrawal with liberty to file fresh suit is allowed. The main suit shall stand dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the plaintiffs to file fresh one in the manner indicated above. Revision petition succeeds as such shall stand disposed of along with the connected CMP(s). 17. Let copy of the order alongwith the Subordinate record be sent to the trial court for information and follow up.