ORDER : R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25-6-2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Haveri, whereby the Civil Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for withdrawing the civil suit for permanent injunction with permission to file a fresh suit thereafter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, Mr. Irappa, before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C, Haveri. Subsequently, during the proceedings, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amending the plaint. According to the petitioner, in the plaint, the property in question was incorrectly mentioned as 1187/A, whereas the property is actually 1187/B. Therefore, a typographical error, which had crept in the plaint, needed to be corrected. However, by order dated 22-10-2013, the trial Court dismissed the application for amendment. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 22-10-2013, he filed a writ petition before this Court, namely Writ Petition No. 85236 of 2013. By order dated 25-2-2014, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. for withdrawing the civil suit, and for filing a fresh one. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. However, by the impugned order dated 25-6-2015, the said application has been dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr. Shivasai M. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the learned trial Court has been swayed by irrelevant considerations. Secondly since there is formal defect as a wrong property had been mentioned in the plaint, the suit is bound to fail. Even if the decree were passed in favour of the plaintiff qua property numbered as 1187/A, the said decree could not be implemented as the real concerned property is numbered as 1187/B. Therefore, even if the petitioner had pursued the civil suit, eventually, the suit would fail. Thirdly, under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., in case the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, it may grant the plaintiff a permission to withdraw such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter. Thirdly, under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., in case the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, it may grant the plaintiff a permission to withdraw such suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter. This particular provision has been ignored by the learned Civil Judge. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mallikarjan S. Hiremath, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the temporary injunction filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Subsequently, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner's report was filed before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge was justified in concluding that the petitioner has tried every trick in the trade to seek a relief. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 6. Order 23 Rule 3 the C.P.C. is 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." 7. A bare perusal of the Order 23 Rule 3 clearly reveals that in case the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or if the plaintiff submits sufficient grounds for allowing him to institute a fresh suit, a permission to withdraw the suit should be given to the plaintiff for instituting a fresh suit in respect of subject matter of such suit. 8. Thus, while entertaining an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C., the Court is concerned only with the issue whether the application satisfies the condition mentioned in the Rule 3 or not? 9. 8. Thus, while entertaining an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C., the Court is concerned only with the issue whether the application satisfies the condition mentioned in the Rule 3 or not? 9. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Civil Judge has not considered the issue with proper perspective. The learned Civil Judge is swayed by the fact that the petitioner had filed an application for wanting to amend his plaint, and had challenged the order dismissing the said application before this Court and subsequently, has filed the application under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. Thus, the impugned order has been passed on irrelevant considerations. Hence, the approach of the learned Civil Judge is not within the purview of Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. 10. Moreover, the impugned order has created an anomalous situation. For, on the one hand, the learned Civil Judge has refused to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint to correct the typographical mistake regarding the correct number of the property in dispute. Yet, on the other hand, the learned Civil Judge has denied the permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit and has not given an opportunity to file a fresh case. In the quixotic situation the question is, if the petitioner were to succeed, and decree were to be passed, the decree would relate to property No. 1187/A, whereas according to the petitioner, the actual number of the property is 1187/B. In such a circumstance, how is the decree going to be executed qua the property No. 1187/B? Therefore, the impugned order leaves the petitioner without any substantiate remedy, and compels him to follow an illusionary remedy. Thus, the impugned order leaves the petitioner into a limbo. It causes a grave injustice to him. 11. Merely because the petitioner has been pursuing different remedies available to him, he cannot be blamed. After all, the petitioner cannot be prohibited from seeking justice. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge that the petitioner seems to be trying every trick in the book, such a conclusion is highly misplaced. 12. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 25-6-2015 is set aside. After all, the petitioner cannot be prohibited from seeking justice. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge that the petitioner seems to be trying every trick in the book, such a conclusion is highly misplaced. 12. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 25-6-2015 is set aside. The learned Single Judge is directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw the civil suit, and is directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to file a fresh suit on the same subject. No order as to costs.