Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging an order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Ulundurpet dated 21.07.2011 made in I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 in O.S. No: 387 of 2007. 2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court . The suit is one for a judgment and decree of declaration and for a permanent injunction. Earlier, the revision petitioner has moved an application in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 in the very same suit for appointment of an advocate commissioner which was dismissed by the trial Court. As against such dismissal, the revision petitioner preferred a revision in C.R.P. No: 341 of 2009. This Court, by an order dated 21.07.2009, allowed the said revision by setting aside the order dated 22.12.2009 made in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed the present I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. This I.A. came to be dismissed by the trial Court by holding that instead of making an application for recovery of possession and for impleading therespective parties in view of the development taken place during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff's plea to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit based on the subsequent developments, cannot be entertained. As against such dismissal, the plaintiff is before this Court in this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials made available on record. 4. Mr. P. Valliappan learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in his consistent plea would submit that in order to avoid any complication in the pending suit, the plaintiff's endeavour is to withdraw the present and file a fresh suit by including every aspect of the issue and therefore, the attempt made by the revision petitioner cannot be faulted with and that the trial Court has not viewed the situation in the right perspective in line with Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. According to him, the trial Court ought to have granted the liberty sought for by the plaintiff. 5. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that in view of the fact that the 1st respondent is aged about 73 years, any attempt by the plaintiff to delay the conclusion of the proceedings cannot be permitted. He would also submit that the plaintiff can very well mould the relief and implead the necessary parties, if she so desires, in the present suit itself and that the trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the plaintiff to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Hence, according to him, the impugned order does not warrant any interference from this Court. 6. Admittedly, petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court in the suit filed for a declaration and for a permanent injunction. Earlier, the revision petitioner has moved an application in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 for appointment of an advocate commissioner. On the dismissal of that interlocutory application, petitioner preferred a revision in C.R.P. No: 341 of 2009. This Court, by an order dated 21.07.2009, allowed the said revision by setting aside the order dated 22.12.2009 made in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed the present I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. According to the revision petitioner, since the interim stay application was dismissed on 22.04.2008, the defendants 1 and 2 have forcibly enterted into the suit premises on 01.05.2008, removed the thatched house and had put up a building with asbestos sheet and that one Mahaboob Beevi had encroached upon the northeast portion by putting up a hall and staircase and that therefore, the suit prayer has to be modified into one for recovery of possession and that the said Mahaboob Beevi has to be impleaded as a party. On this ground, the plaintiff sought permission of the trial Court to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file a fresh suit taking into account the subsequent developments. The trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application by holding that the plaintiff has not stated as to when the defendants have encroached upon the suit property; in case of any such encroachment, the plaintiff can amend the prayer in the suit into one for recovery of possession. The trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application by holding that the plaintiff has not stated as to when the defendants have encroached upon the suit property; in case of any such encroachment, the plaintiff can amend the prayer in the suit into one for recovery of possession. With regard to the alleged encroachment by one Mahaboob Beevi at the northeast portion of the property, the trial Court has held that in case of such encroachment, the plaintiff can implead the said Mahaboob Beevi also as a party in the present suit and claim any relief and for this purpose, there is no necessity for the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. 7. Considering the facts pleaded and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be faulted with. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an application to amend the prayer in the suit and also to implead the necessary parties in the suit for effective adjudication of the matter. Withdrawing the present suit and filing a fresh suit would unnecessarily cause delay. The contention of the 1st defendant, who is aged about 73 years, that he must see the light of the case in his lifetime merits acceptance. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pleads that petitioner may be given liberty to file such applications. 8. In the light of the above submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, while confirming the order of the trial Court, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the revision petitioner to file appropriate applications before the trial Court. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.