JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Defendant no. 1 Goverdhan Dass has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.05.2003 passed by the trial court, thereby allowing the plaintiffs’ to withdraw the suit, with permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action, if so advised. 2. Respondents no. 1 to 4 and Kapoor Chand (predecessor of respondents no. 5 and 6) filed suit in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) on their behalf as well as on behalf of other Proprietors of the Village against defendant no.1- petitioner and performa respondents no. 7 to 9 as defendants no. 2 to 4. Plaintiffs moved application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC for withdrawing the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action alleging that Dera Faqir Udasian is necessary party to the suit, but has not been impleaded, and therefore, the suit is likely to fail due to said defect and impleadment of the said Dera at this stage would result in re-trial of the suit, and therefore, the aforesaid omission cannot be cured by impleading the Dera, at this stage. 3. Defendant no. 1-petitioner, by filing reply, opposed the aforesaid application. 4. Learned trial court, by impugned order dated 14.05.2003, also decided another application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for impleading legal representatives of Kapoor Chand – plaintiff no. 5 and also allowed application of plaintiffs filed under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Part of the impugned order relating to application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC is reproduced hereunder :- “An application u/o 23 rule 1 (3) CPC for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action has been filed. Reply also filed. Joint statement of the plaintiff and their counsel has been recorded separately, in which they have stated that they may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. In view of the statement made by the plaintiff, the suit is dismissed on withdrawn. Reply also filed. Joint statement of the plaintiff and their counsel has been recorded separately, in which they have stated that they may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. In view of the statement made by the plaintiff, the suit is dismissed on withdrawn. The plaintiffs are permitted to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, if so advised. File after needful be consigned to the record room.” 7. The aforesaid order would show that plaintiffs have been allowed to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, merely on their asking and on the basis of their statement without recording satisfaction for granting liberty to file fresh suit within parameters of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC. Liberty to file fresh suit could be granted only if the trial court was satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiffs to institute fresh suit. However, no such finding or satisfaction has been recorded by the trial court in the impugned order. 8. Thus, the impugned order in this regard is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. 9. In addition to the aforesaid, it has to be noticed that the suit has been filed in representative capacity for and on behalf of all Proprietors of the Village under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. According to Order 1 Rule 8 (4) CPC, the Court could not permit withdrawal of suit under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC without giving notice of the application to all the persons interested in the suit. However, this mandatory provision has also not been complied with by the trial court while passing the impugned order. For this reason also, the impugned order suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. 10. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC, is set aside to that extent and the said application is remitted to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law, particularly keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore. 11. The parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 19.08.2013. ---------0.B.S.0------------