JUDGMENT : This revision petition arises out of the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in TS 46 of 2014 wherein the learned court has allowed the respondent to withdraw the title suit bearing no. T.S. 46 of 2014 with liberty to file afresh. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent in this petition being the plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the petitioner who is the defendant in the title suit. There was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent for construction of G+2 storied residential building. However, in the midst of the said construction work, the petitioner-defendant has terminated the agreement by issuing a notice dated 22.03.2014 on the ground stated in the said petition. After termination, the petitioner-defendant wanted to undertake the remaining construction works. At this juncture, the respondent-plaintiff has instituted the suit bearing no. T.S. 46 of 2014. 3. The petitioner-defendant has challenged the order of withdrawal with liberty to file afresh of the suit bearing no. T.S. 46 of 2014. As such, according to me it is necessary to reproduce the reliefs claimed for in T.S. 46 of 2014 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, as under:- “(1) Declaration that the Notice issued by the defendant on 22.0302014 by cancelling the agreement dated 28.11.2012 is illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff; (2) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant to start/complete the work by engaging another person or by himself as per agreement dated 28.11.2012 pending taking up of final joint measurement of the work by appointing a survey commissioner or advocate commissioner to determine the construction work done by the plaintiff at the time of the passing order. And your honour may kindly pass any other order/orders for the fair ends of justice; (3) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to make payment of outstanding amount for the works already executed after taking final measurement and for making payment of all works of extra item/deviated item including the cost of materials utilized in the building on higher side as per final measurement on the basis of voucher/receipts etc. and also for allowing the plaintiff to get back all unused materials after final measurement of the works; (4) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is entitled to get; (5) Cost and compensation of the suit” 4. and also for allowing the plaintiff to get back all unused materials after final measurement of the works; (4) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is entitled to get; (5) Cost and compensation of the suit” 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent-petitioner also filed a petition for granting temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant to undertake any construction work till disposal of T.S. 46 of 2014. The trial court initially passed an interim order, which subsequently was vacated. Appeal being preferred, the appellate court in Misc. Appeal 11 of 2014 restrained the petitioner of this revision petition from undertaking any construction works of the building in question, either by himself or through any other agent till disposal of the main suit. 5. Being aggrieved of that order, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing a revision petition, which was registered as CRP 24 of 2015 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the appellate court. 6. This court with all its wisdom disposed of the case on 17.06.2015, with a direction [as agreed upon by the learned counsels of both the parties], inter alia that the respondent-plaintiff would be allowed to take the measurement regarding the construction done by him till termination of the contract through his engineer, namely, Sri Pradip Kumar Bhattacharjee, Ex-Superintendent Engineer in presence of the petitioner’s representative engineer namely, Sri Satya Sanatan Das, a Civil Engineer and after taking the measurement, the Engineers would furnish the measurement sheets to the parties who would subsequently place the matter before the trial court and the trial court would proceed accordingly, so far as the relief sought for by the plaintiff-respondent herein is concerned and the injunction order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned appellate court shall remain operative till the measurement sheet is submitted before the trial court. 7. In pursuance of the said order, passed by this court, a joint inspection was conducted and the actual measurement of the works done by the respondent-plaintiff till the date of termination of the contract was recorded and submitted before the trial court. In paragraph 12 of the instant revision petition, it is stated “that the respondent had not obtained the measurement sheet, the way this Hon’ble court had directed”. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff had sought to amend the plaint bearing no. In paragraph 12 of the instant revision petition, it is stated “that the respondent had not obtained the measurement sheet, the way this Hon’ble court had directed”. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff had sought to amend the plaint bearing no. T.S. 46 of 2014 by filing an appropriate application before the trial court as according to the respondent, a fresh dispute on facts had cropped up. The petitioner herein, filed his objection and after a prolong hearing, the application for amendment filed by the respondent was rejected. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection to amend the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff had approached this court by way of revision petition which was registered as CRP 77 of 2016. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff prayed for allowing him to withdraw the title suit bearing T.S. 46 of 2014 from the trial court. Accordingly, this court vide its order dated 09.02.2017 passed an order which is reproduced below, for convenience:- “Having heard Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BN Majumder, the learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that the petitioner is willing to withdraw the suit in the trial Court by filing appropriate application. In this view of the matter, this revision petition does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly disposed of. The petitioner will now file an application before the trial court for withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms”. 9. The respondent-plaintiff, accordingly, have filed an application for withdrawal of the title suit being T.S. 46 of 2014 with a liberty to file afresh alongwith a prayer for returning back the measurement sheet, which he had submitted before the trial court in pursuance of the order dated 17.06.2014 in CRP 24 of 2015. 10. I have a look to the contents of the application made under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh where the respondent-plaintiff has stated that the actual measurement of the construction works has been recorded in a joint inspection and as per the measurement, he is entitled to receive Rs. I have a look to the contents of the application made under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh where the respondent-plaintiff has stated that the actual measurement of the construction works has been recorded in a joint inspection and as per the measurement, he is entitled to receive Rs. 48,17,513/- from the petitioner-defendant out of the cost he is entitled to get against the construction works. According to the respondent, this is a subsequent event necessitating him to file the amendment application before the trial court to incorporate those subsequent facts, but the trial court rejected the amendment application with an observation that the “amendment would not solve the purpose of the plaintiff as those matters has come subsequent to the filing of the case” by the order of this court in CRP 24 of 2015 and while this order of rejection was challenged by way of filing revision petition, this court has given him the liberty to seek leave from the trial court to withdraw the suit with a liberty to institute a fresh suit. 11. Perused the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the trial court while allowing the application for withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit. In his order, the trial court has elaborately discussed the rival submissions of both the parties as well as contentions made in the application for withdrawal and the objection thereof filed by the petitioner-defendant. In his finding, the trial court has observed as under:- “I also find justification in the averments made by the plaintiff in his petition that amendment will create complication as well as technical defect in this case. This is more so, as the original suit was made for providing relief by way of declaration and perpetual injunction whereas the plaintiff wanted amendment of the plaint with a prayer for getting of payment of Rs. 48,17,513/- from the defendant and also with some other important and major changes in the suit.” 12. After being so observed, the trial court has come to the conclusion that during pendency of T.S. 46 of 2014, a subsequent development happened in consequence of the measurement done as per order of the Hon’ble High Court. 48,17,513/- from the defendant and also with some other important and major changes in the suit.” 12. After being so observed, the trial court has come to the conclusion that during pendency of T.S. 46 of 2014, a subsequent development happened in consequence of the measurement done as per order of the Hon’ble High Court. So, it is found that the aforesaid position can be attributed as ‘sufficient ground’ for allowing the plaintiff to institute afresh suit and also to accord him permission to withdraw the instant suit and in my considered opinion this is a fit case where the provision of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC may be invoked. Hence the petition filed by the plaintiff side under order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC is hereby allowed. The plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the instant suit and he is at liberty to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter. Plaintiff side is also directed to pay a costs of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) only to the defendant side so that none of the parties are prejudiced.” 13. Heard Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. 14. The bone of contention as advanced by Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel is that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to fulfill the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC. According to him, the basic requirements are that there must be presence of ‘formal defects’ as well as ‘sufficient grounds’ for allowing the plaintiff to institute a suit with liberty to file afresh. Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel has relied upon a decision passed by the Apex Court in V. Rajendran and anr. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) THR. Lrs. Karthyayani Natchiar reported in 2017 STPL 3168 SC and a decision of the High Court of Madras bearing case no. Civil Revision petition no. 2165 of 2008. Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel has referred to paragraph 10 of V. Rajendran (supra) which is recapitulated below, for convenience:- “10. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) THR. Lrs. Karthyayani Natchiar reported in 2017 STPL 3168 SC and a decision of the High Court of Madras bearing case no. Civil Revision petition no. 2165 of 2008. Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel has referred to paragraph 10 of V. Rajendran (supra) which is recapitulated below, for convenience:- “10. In K.S. Bhoopathy and Ors v. Kokila and Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 458 , it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied about the existence of “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds” before granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under the same cause of action. Though, liberty may lie with the plaintiff in a suit to withdraw the suit at any time after the institution of suit on establishing the “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds”, such right cannot be considered to be so absolute as to permit or encourage abuse of process of Court. The fact that the plaintiff is entitled to abandon or withdraw the suit or part of the claim by itself, is no licence to the plaintiff to claim or to do so to the detriment of legitimate right of the defendant. When an application is filed under Order 23, Rule 1 (3) CPC, the Court must be satisfied about the “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds”. ‘Formal defect’ is a defect of form prescribed by the Rules of procedure such as, wants of notice under Section 80 CPC, improper valuation of the suit, insufficient court fee, confusion regarding identification of the suit property, misjoinder of parties, failure to disclose a cause of action etc. ‘Formal defect’ must be given a liberal meaning which connotes various kinds of defects not affecting the merits of the plea raised by either of the parties”. Citing the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel has drawn my attention to sub-para 9 of paragraph 19 which is reproduced below:- “19(9). The other sufficient ground is that the defect must not be due to plaintiff’s own fault, hence the expression ‘other sufficient ground’ should be construed ‘ejusdem generis’ with formal defect. The failure of the plaintiff to prove his own case is no ground for allowing him to withdraw his suit with liberty to suing again for the same subject matter”. 15. Per-contra, learned counsel Mr. The failure of the plaintiff to prove his own case is no ground for allowing him to withdraw his suit with liberty to suing again for the same subject matter”. 15. Per-contra, learned counsel Mr. Mahajan while supporting the order passed by the trial court in allowing the application has candidly submitted that the trial court has exercised its discretionary power considering the fact that the original suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff asking for providing relief by way of declaration and perpetual injunction whereas the reliefs the plaintiff-respondent has sought for in his original suit was totally changed in pursuance of the order of this court to take measurement of the construction works performed by the respondent-plaintiff. 16. Let me re-read and reproduced the relevant portion of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC:- “1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim:- (1) 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: ******** ******** (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.” A bare reading of the aforesaid provision of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC, it is clear that the withdrawal of a suit at any time after its institution, the plaintiff must establish that the suit has badly suffered from formal defects or there are sufficient grounds and the said defect will constitute “formal defect” within the meaning of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) (a) of the CPC and I am convinced that the application for withdrawal of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff would fall under Clause (a) of Rule 1(3) of the CPC. 17. The apex court in V. Rajendran and anr.(supra) has emphasized that when an application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the court must be satisfied about the “formal defect” or “sufficient ground”. 17. The apex court in V. Rajendran and anr.(supra) has emphasized that when an application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the court must be satisfied about the “formal defect” or “sufficient ground”. Defining “formal defect” the apex court have decided that it is a defect of form prescribed by the rules and procedure such as, want of notice under Section 80 CPC, improper valuation of the suit, insufficient court fee, confusion regarding identification of the suit property, mis-joinder of parties, failure to discuss the cause of action etc. They have further emphasized that “formal defect” must be given a liberal meaning which connotes various kind of defect not affecting the merits of the plea raised by either of the parties. 18. This court in CRP 24 of 2015 has categorically directed that with the submission of measurement sheet of the construction work performed by the respondent-plaintiff there would be no embargo for the petitioner-defendant to proceed with the construction works according to his own choice or will. In my opinion, with this order passed by this court in CRP 24 of 2015, virtually, the relief claimed for in TS 46 of 2014 [para 3 of this judgment] had been given a good-bye. 19. In furtherance thereof, according to me, the subsequent events which were developed in view of the order of this court in CRP 46 of 2015 had prompted the respondent-plaintiff to file an amendment application which was rejected and in the fresh revision petition [CRP 77 of 2016], this court on the basis of the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff allowed him to file appropriate application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC. Accordingly, the learned court after hearing the parties and being satisfied, allowed the withdrawal application with liberty to file afresh. 20. I find, there was a prayer in TS 46 of 2014 for granting perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from undertaking the construction works till final joint measurement is taken to determine the construction works done by the plaintiff. The court’s order in CRP 24 of 2015 directed the petitioner-defendant for continuing construction works after the submission of the measurement sheet, resulted a new cause of action for claiming total cost of construction works incurred by the plaintiff-respondent. After final measurement, the suit valuation also was changed upon which court fee is also required to be quantified. The court’s order in CRP 24 of 2015 directed the petitioner-defendant for continuing construction works after the submission of the measurement sheet, resulted a new cause of action for claiming total cost of construction works incurred by the plaintiff-respondent. After final measurement, the suit valuation also was changed upon which court fee is also required to be quantified. Those subsequent developments were not permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment. Moreso, rejecting the amendment application, the trial court came to the conclusion that those subsequent events could not be decided in T.S. 46 of 2014 since it would entirely change the nature and character of the suit being T.S. 46 of 2014. 21. After meticulous study of para 10 of the decision passed in V. Rajendran and anr. (supra) in my considered view, the ‘subsequent development’ after taking measurement in terms of the court’s order in CRP 24 of 2015 gives rise to a new cause of action as well as change of suit valuation which falls within the purview of the term ‘formal defect’ and these ‘formal defects’ cannot be cured in T.S. 46 of 2014. Further, as those defects cannot be removed in T.S. 46 of 2014, these are the sufficient cause to withdraw the suit, because, persuasion of T.S. 46 of 2014 would definitely be a fruitless litigation. 22. In Beniram and others vs. Gaind and others reported in (1981) 4 SCC 209 the apex court has 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 afresh suit. 23. I have given my thoughtful consideration to sub para 9 of para 19 of the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, as my attention has been drawn by Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel. I do not find any fault committed by the plaintiff himself since he has filed the application for withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC because of the ‘subsequent development’, as discussed above and that also in pursuance of the order passed by this court in CRP 24 of 2015. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel. I do not find any fault committed by the plaintiff himself since he has filed the application for withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC because of the ‘subsequent development’, as discussed above and that also in pursuance of the order passed by this court in CRP 24 of 2015. So, this decision relied upon by Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Other part of the paragraph was about the interpretation of ‘other sufficient grounds’ related to ‘ejusdem generis’. In the fact of this particular case, I do not feel it necessary to interpret the expression as to whether the expression ‘other sufficient grounds’ should be construed ‘ejusdem generis’ with formal defect. 24. In the case in hand , if the plaintiff-respondent is precluded from claiming the relief that developed due to subsequent events as discussed in the preceding paragraphs in detail, then according to me, serious miscarriage of justice will be caused which the court should not allow. Moreso, the suit has not been substantially progressed, no trial has begun, and is at a very pre-mature stage. 25. True it is, the object of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not to enable the plaintiff after he failed to conduct his suit with proper care and diligence and after his witnesses failed to support his case, to obtain an opportunity of commencing the trial afresh in order to avoid the result of his previous bad conduct of the case so as to prejudice the opposite party. 26. It is also equally true, that the sufficient grounds are like the suit being pre-matured and the cause of action accruing pending the suit, the plaintiff has failed to put in evidence an important document and the evidence being not available for no fault of the plaintiff. 27. Furthermore, there is no dispute in the bar that the matter of granting permission under this Rule is within the jurisdiction of the court and it has the power to exercise this discretion, only obligation is that the court must give reasons while exercising its discretionary power. 28. In a query by this court to Mr. 27. Furthermore, there is no dispute in the bar that the matter of granting permission under this Rule is within the jurisdiction of the court and it has the power to exercise this discretion, only obligation is that the court must give reasons while exercising its discretionary power. 28. In a query by this court to Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned counsel of the petitioner, as to how he would be prejudiced if a fresh suit is instituted by the respondent-plaintiff, no satisfactory reply has been received by the court. 29. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the present case and on the basis of the judgments relied upon by both the learned counsel appearing for the either side, if the order under challenge by the trial court is carefully examined and tested, I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any irregularity or abused his discretionary power vested on him under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC and consequently, I have no hesitation to affirm the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in case no. TS 46 of 2014. Consequently, the instant revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit and thus disposed of. However, there shall, be no order as to costs.