ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Court below on IA No. XIV filed under Order 23 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of CPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under : It is the case of the present petitioners that their father filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing R.S.No.181/2A measuring 25 guntas. The case of the original plaintiff is that after introduction of Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, the father of the petitioners herein along with father of the respondents jointly filed Form No.7. The Land Tribunal on enquiry, granted Occupancy Rights. Original plaintiffs also contended that 10 guntas of land was acquired by the Government and remaining portion of the land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas was numbered as R.S.No.181/1A+1B+2+3/3. However, the father of the petitioners filed a suit by describing the suit schedule property as R.S.No.181/2A. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the present petitioners died and present petitioners was brought on record as legal representatives. The present petitioners as well as respondents to substantiate their respective contentions led in oral and documentary evidence. When the matter was set in for arguments, the present petitioners filed an amendment application seeking correction of description of the suit land. The present respondents resisted the amendment application. Learned Judge rejected the amendment application filed by the present petitioners. 3. The present petitioner being aggrieved by the order, preferred writ petition before this Court challenging the order of the Trial Court passed on IA No.13 which was filed for seeking amendment of description of suit property. The Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that amendment was not sought by exercising due diligence and there is inordinate delay in seeking amendment. 4. In this background, the present petitioners have filed the present application in IA No.XIV under Order 23 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of CPC seeking withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said application was again strongly resisted by the respondents. The Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that at this stage if application is allowed, great injustice would be caused to the respondents/defendants. The said application was again strongly resisted by the respondents. The Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that at this stage if application is allowed, great injustice would be caused to the respondents/defendants. The said order is under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued and contended before this Court that the description was wrongly stated in the plaint and unless description of the suit land is corrected, the plaintiffs/petitioners cannot proceed with the suit. He further submits that since there is a formal defect and such defect goes to the root of the case and it is also necessary for determining the real controversies between the parties, the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application. He submits that the said order suffers from illegality and material irregularities. Unless, the defect is removed, the petitioners may not succeed in getting appropriate relief from the Court. He submits that the order under challenge needs to be interfered by this Court. 6. To buttress his arguments, he has rel ied upon the judgment in the case of Chikkamadaiah V/s Smt.Ningamma and others, reported in 2018(1)KCCR 299. 7. Per contra, repelling the contentions raised by the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that both the parties have led in evidence and at a belated stage, the application is filed. In this background, he submits that the petitioners cannot be permitted to withdraw the suit reserving liberty to file suit afresh. 8. He would also take this Court to Order 23 Rule 2 of CPC and contend that even if fresh suit is filed, the same would be subject to law of limitation and prays that this Court cannot be permit the petitioners to agitate their rights by second round of litigation and the same would cause inconvenience and hardship to the respondents. 9. I have perused the material on record. On perusal of the plaint, at para No.3, petitioners have described the property as R.S.No.181/2A total measuring 1 acre 25 gunts. 10. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that an extent of 10 guntas was acquired by the Government and after acquisition, the land which was granted to the present petitioners was renumbered as 181/1A+1B+2+3/3. But, however, by oversight, while filing the suit, petitioners had described the suit land as R.S.No.181/2A. 10. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that an extent of 10 guntas was acquired by the Government and after acquisition, the land which was granted to the present petitioners was renumbered as 181/1A+1B+2+3/3. But, however, by oversight, while filing the suit, petitioners had described the suit land as R.S.No.181/2A. On examining this particular aspect, I am of the view that there is a formal defect and unless this defect is cured, it would be futile exercise in prosecuting the suit. From the records, it is also forthcoming that petitioners did take steps in seeking amendment of description of the suit property. However, the said amendment application was rejected and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.106343/2016. Since, amendment application was rejected and confirmed by this Court, I find that petitioners are left remedy less. Unless, the description of the suit property is corrected, the petitioners cannot prosecute the suit and even if they succeed in getting a decree, the same would be a paper decree and would not create any right in favour of the present petitioners. 11. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that petitioners have to be reserved with liberty to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge that the suit is of the year 2008 and the present application is filed only when the matter was set in for arguments and as such application cannot be allowed is palpably erroneous. It appears that learned Judge has laid emphasis on delay in filing the application. What was required to be examined by the Court was since amendment application seeking for correction of description of the suit property was rejected, the present petitioners have no alternative remedy then seeking withdrawal of the suit. 12. The present case on hand squarely falls under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(3)(a) of CPC. This Court is of the view that, if defect is not cured, the suit would fail. In that view of the matter, the captioned revision deserves to be allowed. 13. The counsel for the respondent has contended before this Court that in the event, petitioners opts to file a suit on the same cause of action, the same would be governed by the provisions of Order 23 Rule 2 of CPC. In that view of the matter, the captioned revision deserves to be allowed. 13. The counsel for the respondent has contended before this Court that in the event, petitioners opts to file a suit on the same cause of action, the same would be governed by the provisions of Order 23 Rule 2 of CPC. Such a defence is available to the defendant, however, such defence has to be examined by the Court by taking note of the provisions of Section 14(3) and explanation to Clause (a) of the Limitation Act, 1963. 14. For the reasons stated above, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Judge on IA No.XIV is set aside and the prayer sought in application IA NO.XIV is allowed permitting the petitioners to withdraw the suit reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a suit afresh. 15. It is needless to say that all defences are available to respondent in the event, petitioners file a fresh suit.