ORDER : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order in IA.No.60 of 2020 in OS.No.386 of 2007, dated 27.12.2022 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda wherein the application filed by the petitioners under Order 23 Rule 3(a)(b) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) came to be dismissed. 2. Petitioners are the petitioners-plaintiffs and the respondents are the respondents-defendants in IA.No.60 of 2020 in OS.No.386 of 2007. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below ought to have seen that permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be granted even if the defect is formal or fatal in other words is said that if the ‘formal’ defect is going to fail the suit, and the defect is styled as ‘fatal’ because that would equally cause fatal to the suit. The Court below failed to see the Commissioner’s report that the entire extent of Acs.02-05 guntas of land is Sy.No.340 situated at Thondalvai Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District is now under the encroachment of the respondents-defendants towards Eastern portion of his land, on the Western portion of their land, now in occupation of Acs.02-30 guntas for recovery of possession. 3.2. The Court below came to a conclusion that when the nature of formal defect whether it can be amended or not is not established without examining Advocate Commissioner and did not permit the petitioners to withdraw the suit. The Court below ought to have allowed the petition on payment of cost instead of refusing for withdrawal of the suit in view of the Commissioner’s report as the basic structure of the suit is changed which has become fatal. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Vijay Pal Singh and Others , (2018) 12 SCC 584 (2) Pillakathuku Subbarathnam and another Vs. Executive Officer, Polathala Malleswaraswamy Temple, Ganganapalli Village, Kadapa District and Others , 2005 (4) ALT 423 (S.B.) , (3) Telugu Chinna Thirupathaiah Vs. Boya Nadipi , 2013 (6) ALT 463 (S.B.) , (4) Reshavani @ Reshavena Ailaiah Vs. Macherla Chinna Narasaiah @ Narsinga Rao and Others , 2018 (3) HLT 132 and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Executive Officer, Polathala Malleswaraswamy Temple, Ganganapalli Village, Kadapa District and Others , 2005 (4) ALT 423 (S.B.) , (3) Telugu Chinna Thirupathaiah Vs. Boya Nadipi , 2013 (6) ALT 463 (S.B.) , (4) Reshavani @ Reshavena Ailaiah Vs. Macherla Chinna Narasaiah @ Narsinga Rao and Others , 2018 (3) HLT 132 and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have filed the application seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit at the stage of arguments, the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and the petitioners have not made out any ground for withdrawal of the suit and rightly dismissed the application, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the CRP. 5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 6. Petitioner No.1-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of possession of Acs.02-05 guntas of land in Sy.No.340/5 situated at Thondalvai Village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District against the respondents-defendants. Petitioner No.1-plaintiff No.1 has earlier filed OS.No.291 of 2001 seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents-defendants in respect of Acs.04-35 guntas. In the said suit respondents-defendants have filed their written statement and contended that they are the owners and possessors of land to an extent of Acs.04-30 guntas out of Sy.No.340. In the said suit, respondents who are the defendants have filed IA.No.1562 of 2004 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the disputed land, demarcate and fix up the boundaries of the land of the respondents-defendants admeasuring Acs.04-30 guntas in Sy.No.340 with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Narketpally and the said application was allowed on 19.10.2004 and he has fixed the boundaries of the respondents-defendants land admeasuring Acs.04-30 guntas in Sy.No.340. The respondents-defendants forcibly dispossessed petitioner No.1-plaintiff and occupied Western portion to an extent of Acs.02-05 guntas out of Acs.04-35 of his land before visiting the said Commissioner and Surveyor to the spot on 23.04.2005. Petitioner No.1-plaintiff has filed IA.No.990 of 2006 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw suit in OS.No.291 of 2001, which was allowed on 28.08.2006. It is apt to mention here that along with the suit in OS.No.386 of 2007 a sketch plan is enclosed which shows that the plaint schedule property is shown on the Eastern portion. 7. Respondents who are the defendants in the suit filed their written statement and disputed the location of the plaint schedule property. 8. During pendency of OS.No.386 of 2007, petitioner No.1-plaintiff expired on 10.08.2011 and his legal heirs were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as per orders in IA.No.186 of 2012, dated 19.04 2012. 9. Petitioner No.3-plaintiff No.3 has sworn the affidavit in IA.No.60 of 2020 on his behalf and on behalf of other petitioners and contended that as the respondents-defendants have disputed the location of the land, on their application an Advocate Commissioner is appointed for localization of the land of the parties with the help of Mandal Surveyor. On fresh survey and demarcation of the land of Acs.04-35 guntas they are in possession of the land comprising Acs.02-25 guntas in Sy.No.340/5 and the balance area under encroachment is Ac.01-13 guntas towards Eastern side and Ac.0-32 guntas towards Western side of their land which is in possession of the respondents-defendants. In the earlier survey and demarcation Acs.02-30 guntas of land in Sy.No.340/5 is shown to be towards the Western side of their land and now the encroached land of Acs.02-05 guntas is now said to be towards East side and west side. In view of the said technical and formal defects that too in view of variant reports of Advocate Commissioner for which they are not responsible and they may not be able to succeed in the suit in view of technical error which in fact, being the result of irregular survey and demarcation of the land by the Advocate Commissioner and Mandal Surveyor and sought to permit them to withdraw the present suit (OS No.386 of 2007) with liberty to file fresh suit with proper boundaries as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Mandal Surveyor done in OS.No.386 of 2007. Respondents-defendants contended that the Petitioners-plaintiffs dragged on the suit for years together and there are no merits. 10.1. When the plaintiff applies for withdrawal of the suit along with a prayer to grant him permission to file a fresh suit on the same subject- matter as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of order 23 then in such event, the defendant can object to such prayer made by the plaintiff. In such event, it is for the court to decide as to whether the permission to seek withdrawal of the suit should be granted to the plaintiff and, if so, on what terms as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 : (See Anil Kumar Singh 1 ). 10.2. The expression "sufficient grounds" may have to be considered liberally depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the light of the reasons which had been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also in view of the change of counsel and advice given by him, and further taking into consideration that the suit is yet to be commenced, the learned Judge could have allowed the application instead of dismissing the same. The result of the dismissal of the application is that the plaintiffs may have to be proceeded with the suit further. Instead, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances when specific ground had been taken relating to the defective pleading and defective reliefs prayed for, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to permit the revision petitioners to withdraw the present suit with a liberty to institute a fresh suit, if so advised in relation to the subject-matter of the suit or to the part of the claim of the said suit : (See Pillakathuku Subbarathnam 2 ). 10.3. Whenever an application for permission to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit is considered by the Court, it shall keep in mind whether the plaintiff has satisfied either of the two conditions referred to in Order XXIII Rule 1(3) (a) and (b) CPC. The Court cannot go into the merits of the plea on which the plaintiff seeks to file a fresh suit or it cannot insist on proving such plea in the present suit itself. The Court cannot go into the merits of the plea on which the plaintiff seeks to file a fresh suit or it cannot insist on proving such plea in the present suit itself. It is for the plaintiff to establish his case by adducing relevant evidence in a freshly instituted case. All that the Court needs to be satisfied is that whether the suit suffers from formal defect or that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit : (See Telugu Chinna Thirupathaiah 3 ). 10.4. The words "formal defect" in the normal parlance connote defects of various kinds not affecting the merits of the case. Thus a formal defect is a defect of form unrelated to the claim of plaintiff on merits. In other words, the expression 'formal defect' means a defect of form and not a defect on the merits of the case. Under Clause (b), the court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for allowing plaintiff to file fresh suit for the same subject matter or a part of claim. The thrust under clause (b) is on the words that the Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for instituting a fresh suit for the same subject matter. The words 'sufficient grounds' have to be given sufficiently wide meaning but not a restrictive meaning. What constitutes sufficient grounds has been left to judicial discretion of the Court and whether the grounds stated by the plaintiff merit acceptance as sufficient grounds to permit plaintiff to file a fresh suit after removing the defects in the pending suit. Defect in the plaint constitutes sufficient ground for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The expression 'sufficient grounds' is given wider meaning, but not restricted meaning, so that the right of a party is not prejudicially affected and legal remedy denied without adjudication : (See Reshavani @ Reshavena Ailaiah 4 ). 11. Petitioners have filed IA.No.60 of 2020 under Order 23 Rule 3(a)(b) of CPC. Rule 3 (a) states 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. 11. Petitioners have filed IA.No.60 of 2020 under Order 23 Rule 3(a)(b) of CPC. Rule 3 (a) states 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. Rule 3 further states that it may on such terms as it think 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. 12. Admittedly, petitioner No.1-plaintiff has filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.04-35 guntas of land in Sy.No.340, during pendency of the said suit on the applications made by the respondent-defendant’s Advocate Commissioner is appointed and the land of the respondents-defendants to an extent of Acs.04-30 guntas in Sy.No.340 was measured and boundary stones were fixed, in the said Commissioner’s report petitioner No.1-plaintiff land was occupied towards Western portion to an extent of Acs.02-05 guntas out of Acs.04-35 guntas. Thereby, the petitioner No.1-plaintiff has withdrawn the injunction suit vide OS.No.291 of 2001 with permission to file a fresh suit and thereafter filed OS.No.386 of 2007 stating that Acs.02-05 guntas of land out of an extent of Acs.04-35 guntas in Sy.No.340 of 2005 is occupied by the respondents-defendants on the Western side. 13. During pendency of the suit in OS.No.386 of 2007 on the application made by the petitioners, Advocate Commissioner is appointed for localization of the land of the parties with the help of Mandal Surveyor and on fresh survey and demarcation they found that their land of Acs.04-35 guntas is towards Eastern side of the land of the respondents in Sy.No.340, further demarcation goes to show that they are in possession of an area of Acs.02-35 guntas in Sy.No.340/5 and the remaining area under encroachment is Ac.01-13 guntas on the Eastern side and Ac.0-32 guntas on the Western side of their land which is in possession of the respondents-defendants. 14. Rule 3(a) of Order 23 states that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect and Rule 3(b) states that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. 14. Rule 3(a) of Order 23 states that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect and Rule 3(b) states that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. Though the application came to be filed at the time of arguments but on reading of Order 23 Rule 1 which states that at any time after the institution of the suit the plaintiff may abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. The learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the Court cannot presume that there is formal defect and cannot rely on Advocate Commissioner's report blindly because the report of Advocate Commissioner is not binding on the Court. Further, the parties are under litigation since 2 decades on the same subject matter and the formal defect which can be amended by amending the pleadings and the formal defect whether it can be amended or not is not established without examining the Advocate Commissioner and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish the formal defects or sufficient grounds and such right cannot be considered to be so absolute as to permit or encourage abuse of process of the Court. The finding of the learned trial Court is perverse in view of the fact that Order 23 Rule 1 contemplates that at any time after the institution of the suit, plaintiff may abandon his claim. Advocate Commissioner’s report filed in OS.No.386 of 2007 states that Ac.01-13 guntas is towards Eastern side and Ac.0-32 guntas towards Western side of the petitioner's land is encroached. Though the application is filed by the petitioners at the fag end of the matter, the respondents can be compensated with costs. In view of the Commissioner’s report in OS.No.386 of 2007 the suit suffers from formal defects and there are sufficient grounds for allowing the petitioners to institute a fresh suit. 15. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts stated Supra in Para Nos.10.1 to 10.4 are applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. 15. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts stated Supra in Para Nos.10.1 to 10.4 are applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties and came to a wrong conclusion that the petitioners have not made out or established the formal defects or sufficient grounds, which is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside in view of the reasons above. Respondent No.1 is shown as died in the cause title of the CRP. Petitioners are hereby directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 17. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioners to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the orders passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.60 of 2020 in OS.No.386 of 2007 dated 27.12.2022 is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.