Judgment 1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, has come up with the above revision challenging the rejection of a memo filed by him for giving up the defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. 2. Heard Mr. R. Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/caveator takes notice. 3. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore for specific performance of an agreement of sale allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant/ first respondent herein. In the suit, he impleaded (i) a society namely Sri Nandanar Kalvikazhagam represented by its Secretary; (ii) a Mutt by name Sri Nandanar Mutt represented by the Mutt Head; (iii) one Mr. M. Dhamotharan; (iv) one Mr. M. Paranthaman; and (v) the State of Tamilnadu represented by the District Collector. 4. Though the agreement of sale was actually between the petitioner and the first respondent, the other defendants were made parties to the suit on account of the fact that the Government of Tamilnadu came up with a plan to construct a Mani Mandapam in honour of one Swami Sagajanantha. 5. Interestingly, the first defendant filed a written statement almost submitting to the decree, though not in so many terms. However, the suit was not only contested hotly by the other defendants, but also the State of Tamilnadu played a proactive role by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint. 6. But, it appears that the original plan that the Government had to construct a Mani Mandapam ran into rough weather with local politics playing a major role caste factors came to the fore, forcing the Government of Tamilnadu to drop the proposal. 7. The moment the Government dropped the proposal to construct a Mani Mandapam, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a memo for giving up the defendants 3 to 5. The reason is so obvious. Once the defendants 3 to 5 are given up, a decree for specific performance was imminent. Seeing through the game plan, the Trial Court rejected the memo. As against the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 8. The reason is so obvious. Once the defendants 3 to 5 are given up, a decree for specific performance was imminent. Seeing through the game plan, the Trial Court rejected the memo. As against the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 8. Relying upon the decision of this Court in E.D. Charles and Seven Others v. G. Selvaraj and Another 2011 (1) L.W. 37 : (2011) 2 MLJ 441 , it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the moment a memo is filed for giving up some of the defendants, the Trial Court has no alternative except to accept it. It is further contended that the plaintiff, being the dominus litus in a suit, cannot be compelled to retain the parties, against whom, the plaintiff is not seeking any relief. 9. I have carefully considered the above submissions. 10. First of all, the decision in E.D. Charles and Seven Others v. G. Selvaraj and Another (supra) arose out of a memo filed under Order XXIII Rule 1. It was not a memo filed under Order I or Order VI, for striking out the names of any of the parties. The right to withdraw a suit, without reserving liberty, may be absolute. But, in so far as the right to give up parties is concerned, it is subject to various factors. 11. In the case on hand, the Government might have given up the proposal to put up a Mani Mandapam. But still, their right to contest the suit survives. This is in view of the fact that the property belongs to the Mutt. The Head of the Mutt has also filed an application for impleadment on the ground that the erstwhile secretary executed an agreement of sale, without authority and he has been removed on account of financial irregularities. In such circumstances, it is not a simple case of adversarial litigation between two parties where one submits to the decree and the other is sought to be given up. Moreover, the question as to how far the provisions of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 would apply, may also have to be examined. Hence, I do not find any mistake in the order of the Trial Court. 12. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed. 13. Moreover, the question as to how far the provisions of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 would apply, may also have to be examined. Hence, I do not find any mistake in the order of the Trial Court. 12. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed. 13. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months. Revision dismissed.