ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. 1. The petitioner who is plaintiff in the trial court has filed the above writ petition challenging the order dated 15.04.2014 passed on I.A. No. 7, allowing his application in-part, permitting the petitioner to withdraw the suit and so far as permission to file fresh suit is rejected. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement in O.S. No. 23/2007 to enforce the contract dated 16.2.2004 contending that, the defendant for want of money for her family necessities offered to alienate the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same and entered into an agreement on 16.02.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant as advance amount on the date of agreement. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant has postponed the execution of the sale deed on one way or the other ground. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit for specific performance of the agreement in O.S.23/2007 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chikkodi. 2. The defendant filed Written Statement and denied the entire transaction and plaint averments including the contract. After completion of evidence on both sides when the matter was posted for arguments at that stage, the plaintiff filed the application under Order-XXIII, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said application was resisted by the defendant by filing objections. The trial court, after hearing both sides, passed the present impugned order, partly allowing the application only to withdraw the suit and the prayer for with liberty to file fresh suit is rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri. V.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court allowing the application in part is not permissible in law view of the provision to Order 23, Rule 1(a) and (b) of Civil Procedure Code and in view of the law declared by this Court time and again. 5. Per contra, Sri. 5. Per contra, Sri. S.S. Magadum, learned Counsel appearing for respondent has sought to justify the order that the application filed for withdrawal is at a belated stage when the matter was posted for arguments and the trial court has rightly rejected the same. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and perused the entire material on record. 7. The facts are not in dispute. The suit is filed for specific performance to enforce the contract said to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant filed written statement and denied the entire plaint averments. Thereafter, the present application is filed by the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. But the trial court has allowed the application in part for withdrawal but did not grant any opportunity to the plaintiff to file fresh suit on the same cause of action holding that there was no formal defect in the suit. The provision of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that, at any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. Rule (3) states that, where the court is satisfied that (a) 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. The trial court has only considered the clause (a) of sub-clause (3) of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and has not considered clause (b). The plaintiff had given the reasons for the withdrawal of the suit and on that basis, sought a liberty to file a fresh suit. 8. The trial court cannot split the prayer of the plaintiff in two parts. The relief claimed by the plaintiff was a composite relief, viz., withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The plaintiff had given the reasons for the withdrawal of the suit and on that basis, sought a liberty to file a fresh suit. 8. The trial court cannot split the prayer of the plaintiff in two parts. The relief claimed by the plaintiff was a composite relief, viz., withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit. This relief cannot be split by the trial court in two parts. Either the trial court has to allow the application in toto or application has to be rejected in toto. The Court has no jurisdiction to split up the relief in two parts unless the plaintiff gives his consent to that effect. It was not the intention of the legislature that the plaintiff should be put to this loss by breaking up the prayer for withdrawal with permission to file a fresh suit about the same subject matter into two parts. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court is erroneous and cannot be sustained and same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.4.2014 passed on I.A. No. 7 in O.S. No. 23/2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi is quashed. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi is directed to reconsider the application I.A.7 filed under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC afresh and pass orders in accordance with law after hearing both parties, as expeditiously as possible. In view of disposal of the main matter on merits, question of considering I.A.1/2014 does not arise.