ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Das for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2. This revision petition is directed against the Order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Tezpur, Sonitpur by which the respondents have been allowed to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file afresh. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that after filing of the written statement by the petitioner, the respondents realized that there were formal defects in their pleadings and accordingly, have now tried to rectify the same by withdrawing the suit and by filing a suit afresh. He submits that the same should not be allowed. 4. In the case of V. Rajendran And Anr. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) Thr. Lrs. Karthyayani Natchiar, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 63 , the Apex Court has held at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 as follows:- “10. As per Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, suit may only be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit when the Court is satisfied that the suit must fail for reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. The power to allow withdrawal of a suit is discretionary. In the application, the plaintiff must make out a case in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a) or (b) CPC and must ask for leave. The Court can allow the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit only if the condition in either of the clauses (a) or (b) that is, existence of a “formal defect” or “sufficient grounds”. The principle under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC is founded on public policy to prevent institution of suit again and again on the same cause of action. 11. In K.S Bhoopathy v. Kokila (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. 11. In K.S Bhoopathy v. Kokila (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 XXIII 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, 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 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.” 5. As the power to allow withdrawal of the suit is discretionary and the learned Trial Court has allowed the same on being satisfied about the existence of a formal defect or sufficient ground, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.