JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sabroom, South Tripura being T.S. 04 of 2015 seeking declaration of the right, title and interest of the suit land by way of adverse and continuous possession, consequential decree of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction and for cancelling the registered instrument of sale in respect of the suit land. 3. The respondents filed the written statement and immediately after filing of the written statement, the plaintiff-petitioner filed one petition for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh under Order XXIII, Rule (1)(3) of the CPC. 4. After hearing, by the order dated 30.05.2016, the trial court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit but refused to give liberty to file a fresh suit after removing the so called 'formal’ defects. That order is challenged by this petition, filed under Sec. 115 of the CPC. 5. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though in the suit, mandatory injunction has been sought against the District Sub-register, Sabroom but the said Sub-register has not been made party in the suit. Moreover, when it has been revealed that the suit land has been allotted in favour of the predecessor of the defendant-respondents, it is required that the state and its officer who created the said allotment order i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom being the necessary parties are impleaded in the suit. Hence the prayer has been made that the defects as indicated are required to be removed. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further submitted that the withdrawal with liberty to file afresh appeared eminent as without serving a notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC, the state and its officers cannot be added as the party. Hence, the prayer was made. 6. Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the incident of allotment was known to them. Despite that knowledge, those persons were not made party. Now in this stage, when the suit is destined to be dismissed, they have taken a ploy to give a fresh lease of life of the dispute. 6. Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the incident of allotment was known to them. Despite that knowledge, those persons were not made party. Now in this stage, when the suit is destined to be dismissed, they have taken a ploy to give a fresh lease of life of the dispute. It is not a case of mis-joinder of the party rather a non-joinder of parties and for non-joinder of the parties no liberty can be granted to institute a fresh suit after withdrawal. 7. In reply, Mr. Nath, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Beniram and Others versus Gaind and Others reported in (1981) 4 SCC 209 where the apex court granted liberty to file afresh after withdrawal in a case where for non-pleading of the necessary parties, the apex court has observed that the technical impediment in pursuing the suit as surfaced may result in dismissal of the suit or appeal. Even a fresh adjudication over that issue may also be barred by constructive res judicata. Thus, the apex court has allowed withdrawal with liberty to institute a fresh suit. 8. In Sangram Singh versus Election Tribunal Kotah and Another reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 while dealing with the interpretation of a legal procedure it has been observed that : “The laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.” 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that no prejudice would be caused to the defendent-respondents, if liberty to file the suit afresh after removing the defect is granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. However, this order should be subject to payment of Rs. 3000/-. Hence, the said impugned order dated 30.05.2016 is interfered with and set aside. However, this order should be subject to payment of Rs. 3000/-. Hence, the said impugned order dated 30.05.2016 is interfered with and set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to file the fresh suit in respect of the subject matter after removing the defects as noted above or any other defects, subject to the payment of Rs.3000/- to the defendant-respondents. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. LCRs be returned forthwith.