JUDGMENT Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal whereby the application under Order 23, Rule 1(3) CPC filed by the plaintiffs was allowed. 2. Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file fresh in respect of same cause of action subject to Order 23, Rule 2 CPC i.e. limitation as limitation law is not affected by first suit. 3. In case, fresh suit is instituted on the basis of permission granted by the Court, plaintiffs are bound by the law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been instituted. 4. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 04.11.2016, following order was passed:- "Limited plea raised before this court is that lis between the parties has already been decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. Even, if present order is maintained, plaintiff may not be granted permission to file a fresh suit. It has also been brought to the notice of the court that plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the suit on the basis of a technical defect (non joinder of parties) at the stage when it was nearing culmination. Notice of motion for 16.12.2016. Notice re: stay." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his prayer only to the second aspect i.e. permission to file fresh suit may not be granted, though there was no challenge to withdrawal of the suit in terms of Order 23, Rule 1 CPC. 6. In Lal Singh vs. Ajit Singh and another, (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 650 , it was held that when the plaintiffs makes an application for withdrawal of the suit for filing fresh on the same cause of action, permission to withdraw is deemed to be with a liberty to file fresh as the Court could not permit withdrawal without permission to file fresh suit. 7. In terms of Order 23 Rules 1 and 4 CPC, plaintiffs are entitled to leave or relinquish any part of the claim. Defendants cannot compel the plaintiffs to prosecute the suit by opposing the prayer in respect to claim costs for filing suit against them and putting them in litigation. 8. 7. In terms of Order 23 Rules 1 and 4 CPC, plaintiffs are entitled to leave or relinquish any part of the claim. Defendants cannot compel the plaintiffs to prosecute the suit by opposing the prayer in respect to claim costs for filing suit against them and putting them in litigation. 8. Since the plaintiffs have already confined their prayer to the second part of the relief, therefore, in view of aforesaid ratio in Lal Singh's case (supra), the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer with any error of jurisdiction. 9. This revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.