ORDER : (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Eighth Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.44-A/2021, whereby, the trial Court partly allowed the application preferred by the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 (3)(b) of the CPC and granted permission to withdraw the suit, however, refused to grant liberty to file a fresh suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed the civil suit for permanent injunction and for declaration of Will dated 25.07.2024 to be null and void which was executed in favour of the defendant. It was averred by the plaintiff that she has entered into unregistered sale deed dated 22.11.2015 which was earlier recorded in the name of late Smt. Pushpa Shrivastava and on the basis of the said deed the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It was further averred that the concerned Municipal Corporation has mutated the name of defendant in place of plaintiff in a fraudulent manner, and therefore, the defendant is threatening her to dispossess from the house. The said issue gave rise to the civil suit. In the said suit, the plaintiff has preferred an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3)(b) of the CPC on the ground that notice was required under Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act and the Municipal Corporation is necessary party in the suit, however, the same could not be impleaded as a party and on account of such formal defect the suit might be failed. However, the trial Court has partly allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for withdrawal of suit but declined to grant liberty to file fresh suit. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the impugned order is bad in law. He submits that the plaintiff has only sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit as notice was not served upon Municipal Corporation which is mandatory as per relevant provision. He further submits that the defendant has fraudulently mutated the name of plaintiff in the record of the Municipal Corporation on the basis of forged Will. However, the trial Court has not exercised its discretion in proper manner and committed error while passing the impugned order. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the matter of V. Rajendran and another Vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) Thr. LRs. However, the trial Court has not exercised its discretion in proper manner and committed error while passing the impugned order. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the matter of V. Rajendran and another Vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) Thr. LRs. Karthyayani Natchiar [AIR 2017 Supreme Court 685]. 4. In the matter of V. Rajendran (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the scope and exercise of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the CPC. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:- 9. Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC lays down the following grounds on which a Court may allow withdrawal of suit. It reads as under: R.1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. — (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. As per Order 23 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 23 Rules 1(3)(a) or (b) CPC and must ask for leave. The Court can allow the application filed under Order 23 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 23 Rule 1(3) CPC is founded on public policy to prevent institution of suit again and again on the same cause of action. 10. The principle under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC is founded on public policy to prevent institution of suit again and again on the same cause of action. 10. 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 23 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, misjoinder 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. 11. In terms of Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) where the court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit, the Court may permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. In interpretation of the words “sufficient grounds”, there are two views: one view is that these grounds in clause (b) must be “ejusdem generis” with those in clause (a), that is, it must be of the same nature as the ground in clause (a), that is, formal defect or at least analogous to them; and the other view was that the words “other sufficient grounds” in clause (b) should be read independent of the words a “formal defect” and clause (a). Court has been given a wider discretion to allow withdrawal from suit in the interest of justice in cases where such a prayer is not covered by clause (a). Since in the present case, we are only concerned with “formal defect” envisaged under clause (a) of Rule 1 sub-rule (3), we choose not to elaborate any further on the ground contemplated under clause (b), that is, “sufficient grounds”. 5. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has averred that no Will has been executed in favour of the defendant. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has entered into suit property on the basis of unregistered sale deed. It is well established law that mutation entry does not confer any title in any dispute between the parties in the form of suit. Moreover, the concerned Municipal Corporation shall itself follow the outcome of the said suit. Therefore, no formal defect appears in the suit as stipulated under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) (a) of the CPC that “a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect”. 6. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that no sufficient reasons have been assigned by the plaintiff to obtain liberty to file fresh suit on account of formal defect in the suit. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for any interference by this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed.