JUDGMENT :- (Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.06.2011 made in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 dated 13.06.2011, in and by which, the learned Additional District Munsif has dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C, praying to pass an order to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the matter of the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. None appeared on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 & 8 to 12. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.330 of 2004 who filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way trespassing into or otherwise disturbing her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The respondents 1 to 9 herein are the defendants 1 to 9 in the said suit. The respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 have claimed that they have purchased a property from the 9th respondent/9th defendant. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 have impleaded the 9th respondent/9th defendant as a party to the suit vide order in I.A.No.893 of 2008 dated 08.09.2009. The respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 have filed the written statement, but, they have not given any particulars of the sale deed i.e., date of sale and consideration passed in the said sale deed and also not produced any documents along with written statement to prove their claim. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has also filed a detailed written statement, but, so far, her written statement was not recorded by the trial Court. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has also not given any particulars of sale deed executed by her in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has also filed a detailed written statement, but, so far, her written statement was not recorded by the trial Court. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has also not given any particulars of sale deed executed by her in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8. Further, in her written statement, the 9th respondent/9th defendant has stated that she has sold some of the properties involved in the suit for the benefit of the suit Trust and the said sales were effected both for necessity and benefit of the Trust. The written statement was served on the petitioner/plaintiff in the month of November 2010 and the petitioner/plaintiff was making attempts to verify the records through Sub Registry, Komarapalayam to get correct particulars with respect to the sale deed executed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8. 4. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the 9th respondent/9th defendant has no locus standi to execute the sale deed of the Trust property in favour of the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 since the property is a trust property and therefore, the same cannot be sold without the permission of the Court. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the Trust property and its administration and its property. There are also previous proceedings from between the petitioner/plaintiff and the 9th respondent/9th defendant, in which, the sale deed executed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant with respect to the Trust property at Chennai is declared as null and void. Hence, the 9th respondent/9th defendant is not entitled to represent as Managing Trustee of the petitioner/plaintiff Trust. Moreover, neither the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 nor the 9th respondent/9th defendant has given any correct particulars of the sale deed in the written statement filed by them. The petitioner/plaintiff was advised to take steps to set-aside the sale-deed as null and void since the 9th respondent/9th defendant has no locus standi to execute the sale deed. The petitioner/plaintiff apprehended that the suit may fail for the reasons of formal defects and there are sufficient reasons to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit under the same cause of action. The petitioner/plaintiff apprehended that the suit may fail for the reasons of formal defects and there are sufficient reasons to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit under the same cause of action. Therefore, she has filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.185 of 2011 under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant, it is stated that the 9th respondent/9th defendant is the Managing Trustee of the suit Trust and not the petitioner/plaintiff. The 9th respondent/9th defendant and the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 will be filing their necessary documents and the sale deed at the time of trial. Since the respondents 7 to 9/defendants 7 to 9 were impleaded recently, non-filing of the documents and non-recording of the written statement filed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant are not ground for withdrawing the suit. If the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the 9th respondent/9th defendant is not entitled to sell the suit properties, the petitioner/plaintiff can very well get on with the trial of the suit. The 9th respondent/9th defendant lawfully sold the properties, for the benefit of the suit Trust and as Managing Trustee of the suit Trust. Even the Trust Deed permits the 9th respondent/9th defendant to sell the properties of the suit for the benefit of the suit Trust, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the vexatious and frivolous suit and wanted to withdraw the suit on false grounds. Therefore, the suit cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner/plaintiff. The copy of the Trust deed is not before the trial Court or even before this Court to substantiate the claim of the 9th respondent/9th defendant that she is permitted under the Trust deed to sell the properties of the suit Trust. The 9th respondent/9th defendant has got all authorities to sell the suit property and pending of other suits between the 9th respondent/9th defendant and the petitioner/plaintiff have no relevancy to this petition, which is filed to withdraw the suit. 6. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is hit under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. If at all the petitioner/plaintiff is genuine in her activities, she should take necessary steps on this suit itself and get her remedies if any. 6. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is hit under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. If at all the petitioner/plaintiff is genuine in her activities, she should take necessary steps on this suit itself and get her remedies if any. The provisions of Indian Trust Act do no permit her to file the suit O.S.No.330 of 2004 and so she cannot be allowed to withdraw the same. Already, another suit in O.S.No.150 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and the same was withdrawn by her on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. Fearing dismissal of the suit O.S.No.330 of 2004, the petitioner/plaintiff is adopting the very same method of withdrawing the illegal suits filed by her. 7. In the written statement filed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant and adopted by the respondents 2 to 6/defendants 2 to 6, it is stated that when there is dispute with regard to the title over the suit properties, the petitioner/plaintiff is not at liberty to file a suit for permanent injunction alleging that she is the absolute owner of the property. At any rate, the suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title to the suit properties. The petitioner/plaintiff with a view to deprive the original trustee to get the rent, filed several suits before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode against the tenants and the same are pending. Hence, the 9th respondent/9th defendant in order to avoid loss and hardship to the tenants or to the prospective buyers. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction against the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 in respect of Trust properties and the respondents 1 to 6/defendants 1 to 6 have filed their written statement, in which, they stated that they have purchased the property from the 9th respondent/9th defendant and the sale deed was not challenged in the present suit. The written statement filed by the respondents 1 to 6/defendants 1 to 6 does not indicate the date of their purchase of the property from the 9th respondent/9th defendant. But the 9th respondent/9th defendant was impleaded as the party to the suit. He would further submit that the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh comprehensive suit. But the 9th respondent/9th defendant was impleaded as the party to the suit. He would further submit that the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh comprehensive suit. Only when the written statement was filed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant in the month of November 2010, the petitioner/plaintiff came to know about the invalid sale deed executed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant and the 9th respondent/9th defendant has no legal right to deal with the subject matter properties. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.185 of 2011. These factual aspects of the case were not considered in proper perspective by the trial Court. It is the privilege of the petitioner/plaintiff alone to withdraw the suit at any stage of the proceedings by way of filing an Application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C and the respondents 1 to 9/defendants 1 to 9 have no locus standi to oppose or object the same. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 2011 and the suit was pending since 2004. Hence, there is a delay of seven years in filing I.A.No.185 of 2011. But it is not a ground to reject the request of the petitioner/plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied on the following judgments: (i) V.Rajendran and Anr. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Karthyayani Natchiar reported in (2017) 5 SCC 63 (ii) Rajamanickam Vs. P.Dhandapani and Ors. reported in 2013 (5) CTC 385 . 9. As far as this case is concerned, the point for consideration is that whether the petitioner/plaintiff can withdraw the present suit, under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C or not? 10. It is pertinent to extract Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of C.P.C hereinbelow: (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.” 11. In the instant case, the 9th respondent/9th defendant sold some of the properties involved in the suit, to the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 and the petitioner/plaintiff wants to set aside the sale deed since she was also advised to file the suit declaring the sale deed as null and void. As per the provisions of XXIII Rule 1(3) of C.P.C, there must be some formal defects to withdraw the suit. The words ‘Formal Defect’ means the defect with respect of form prescribed by rules of procedure which does not affect the merits of the case. This case does not come under the purview of the word ‘Formal Defect’. In this case, it is pleaded that the correct particulars of the sale deed were not given by the 9th respondent/9th defendant and the petitioner/plaintiff is verifying the records through the Sub Registry, Komaraplayam, to get correct particulars. 12. The judgement delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of V.Rajendran and Anr. Vs. Annasamy Pandian (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Karthyayani Natchiar reported in (2017) 5 SCC 63 is not applicable to the present case since the said judgment refers to a case where there was a formal defect in the suit according to Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. Further, in the said case, the appellants/plaintiffs therein filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the respondents/defendants were trying to interfere with the possession of their suit property in Survey No.192/9 but the respondents/defendants are said to have transferred the Patta for the suit property settling as Survey No.192/14. The appellants/plaintiffs therein alleged that only after the suit was filed, they came to know that the respondents/defendants executed a Registered Inam Settlement Deed in favour of their son (son of the respondents) by mentioning the suit property as Survey No.192/14. In the aforesaid case, the Honourable Apex Court held that the defect in the survey number of the suit property goes to the very core of the subject matter of the suit and the entire proceedings would be fruitless if the decree holder is not able to get the decree executed successfully. Therefore, the Civil Appeal filed by the appellants therein was allowed by the Honourable Apex Court. 13. Similarly, the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Rajamanickam Vs. P.Dhandapani and Ors. Therefore, the Civil Appeal filed by the appellants therein was allowed by the Honourable Apex Court. 13. Similarly, the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Rajamanickam Vs. P.Dhandapani and Ors. reported in 2013 (5) CTC 385 , is also not applicable to the case on hand since in the said case, there were both formal defects and sufficient reasons for withdrawing the suit and therefore, permission was granted to the appellant therein to withdraw the suit on payment of costs and liberty was also granted to the appellant therein to file a comprehensive suit on the same cause of action relating to the same subject matter relating to the suit. But, in the present case, there is no formal defect and sufficient grounds/reasons for allowing the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the matter of the suit, under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a) & (b) of C.P.C. 14. While dismissing I.A.No.185 of 2011, the trial Court has relied on the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Chinnavairadevar Vs. S.Vairadevar reported in 1982(2) MLJ 400 . In view of the above mentioned judgment, the inability to secure necessary evidence by the petitioner/plaintiff is not the right ground to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action. Moreover, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to raise any objection when the case was posted in the special list in the month of February 2011 and the non-recording of written statement of 9th respondent/9th defendant will not cause prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit only if she satisfies the Court that there is a formal defect or she is having other sufficient grounds. But, the petitioner/plaintiff did not satisfy the provisions contemplated under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a)&(b) of C.P.C. Hence, she is not entitled to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action. 15. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove her case for withdrawing the suit. The trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.185 of 2011 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff since she failed to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Rule. 15. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove her case for withdrawing the suit. The trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.185 of 2011 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff since she failed to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Rule. The main contention of the petitioner/plaintiff to withdraw the present suit and to file a fresh suit with a same cause of action since the details of the sale transaction between the 9th respondent/9th defendant and the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8 is not furnished. The petitioner/plaintiff can very well file a separate suit for declaration, to declare the sale deed between the 9th respondent/9th defendant and the respondents 1 to 8/defendants 1 to 8, instead of seeking to withdraw the present suit O.S.No.330 of 2004. The failure on the part of the 9th respondent/9th defendant to disclose the details of the property is not a sufficient ground to withdraw the suit. The further contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she came to know about the sale deed executed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant only after the 9th respondent/9th defendant was impleaded in I.A.No.893 of 2008 as per the order dated 08.09.2009 and the alleged sale deed was executed in the month of November 2010 as per the written statement filed by the 9th respondent/9th defendant. There is no doubt that the petitioner/plaintiff has the privilege to withdraw the suit at any stage of the proceedings only if she satisfies the provisions contemplated under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a)&(b) of C.P.C. It is also to be noted that the suit is of the year 2004 and the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.185 of 2011 only on 22.12.2011, after a period of seven years from the filing of the suit. If the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to withdraw the present suit and to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action, she could have done the same much earlier that too by assessing valid and sufficient reason and fulfilling the provisions of the aforesaid Rule. Hence, the petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a)&(b) of C.P.C is not maintainable under law. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode. 17. Hence, the petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a)&(b) of C.P.C is not maintainable under law. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode. 17. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in O.S.No.330 of 2004 dated 13.06.2011 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.