ORDER : 1. The plaintiff has preferred present revision petition against the judgment and order dated 28th December, 2019 passed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff Srinagar. 2. Briefly stated the material facts of the case are as under:- (i). The petitioner herein filed a civil suit in the court of learned Munsiff Srinagar. During the pendency of suit, an application came to be preferred by him seeking permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file a fresh one. However, no cogent reasons were reflected in the application except to the limited extent that many other legal facts are needed to be noted in the fresh suit. It needs to be noticed that at the time when the petitioner-plaintiff had preferred the civil suit, no interim injunction was granted by the court below in his favour. (ii). It appears that the application was considered by the court below and by virtue of order impugned, while dismissing the suit, liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action was denied. 3. Grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the relief for withdrawal of the suit was prayed for along-with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and therefore if at all the application had to be decided, the same could not have been decided in peace meals i.e. granting one relief while rejecting the other. It is stated that the plaintiff, if he had known that prayer for filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action was to be rejected, he would not have chosen to withdraw and would continue with the said suit. It is urged that the court below had thus committed an illegality to the extent that while it could have rejected the prayer for filing the fresh suit on the same cause of action, it dismissed the suit as withdrawn. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order passed by the court below. It is urged that the court below had thus committed an illegality to the extent that while it could have rejected the prayer for filing the fresh suit on the same cause of action, it dismissed the suit as withdrawn. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order passed by the court below. While the court below appears to be right in rejecting the application to the extent that no sufficient cause had been shown by the plaintiffs to seek permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, yet the plaintiff ought to have been given a further opportunity to decide whether he wishes to withdraw the suit even though the opportunity for filing a fresh suit was being denied. It needs to be seen that while the plaintiffs did make an application before the court below, they had shown enough intention to continue the litigation after seeking a proper amendment/addition and incorporation of certain facts in the new suit. At no point of time the plaintiffs reflected their intention to give up their right to sue against the defendants on the same cause of action. 5. Be that as it may, in my opinion in passing the order impugned to the extent the court below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff while rejecting the prayer for filing the fresh suit on the same cause of action was legally impermissible, thus warranting the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction of this court. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the court below in so far as it dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs is set-aside. The plaintiff will be permitted to continue with his suit in accordance with law. It shall be open to them to file an appropriate application for amendment if so advised which shall be considered on its own merits by the court below. 7. Disposed of.