Judgment This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 21.01.2012 in I.A.No.727 of 2011 in O.S.No.203 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. After completion of the evidence on his side and after the cross-examination of DW.1, the petitioner came up with the above-mentioned application seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration of title and other reliefs. This application is dismissed by the trial Court. Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC., the plaintiff can be permitted by the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit if one or both of the following requirements is/are satisfied, i.e., “(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 is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the suit suffers from formal defect as envisaged under sub-clause (a) reproduced above. In order to fall under sub-clause (b), the petitioner must satisfy the Court that sufficient grounds exist for allowing him to institute a fresh suit. The petitioner failed to explain as to why in the first place he has not filed the suit for declaration of title and, having filed a suit for injunction simplicitor, why he had to wait till cross-examination of DW.1 was completed. While the reason put forth by the petitioner that with a view to file a comprehensive suit for inclusion of the prayer of declaration of title, he wants to withdraw the suit, may superficially appear to be appealing, if such pleas are accepted during the midst of the trial, more often the plaintiffs would try to find an easy way out to wriggle out of the tight situations wherever they find the going tough during the trial, by coming out with such applications. If a liberal approach in giving such permissions is displayed by the Courts, there is a likelihood of the defendant suffering the litigation endlessly. If a liberal approach in giving such permissions is displayed by the Courts, there is a likelihood of the defendant suffering the litigation endlessly. Therefore, whenever requests for withdrawal of the suits after commencement of the trial are made, the Courts need to examine such requests with due care and caution and unless the Court is fully satisfied that sufficient reasons exist for granting such permission, such applications shall not be allowed. On the facts of the present case, if the petitioner felt that by inadvertence or wrong advise, he did not include the prayer of declaration of title in the plaint, the appropriate course for him should have been to file an application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner has not made any such effort in the first place. Having waited till the cross-examination of DW.1 was completed, the petitioner has filed the application for withdrawal of the suit. In this fact situation, I do not find any bonafides in the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and the lower Court has rightly dismissed the application. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.4098 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous.