ORDER: The order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.501 of 2023 in OS.No.205 of 2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad is under challenge in the present Revision Petition. 2. Heard Sri R.Ranganathan, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Singh Thakur Anoop, learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 3. The revision petitioner is defendant, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.6 to 10 herein are defendants in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in OS.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, seeking to declare them as absolute owners of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.34/A of Kareempur Village, Bantawaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction against the defendant not to alienate the suit schedule property and initially, interim injunction was granted vide IA.No.3 of 2005 and thereafter, the same was made absolute on 15.02.2006. Subsequently, defendant No.3 filed an application in IA.No.811 of 2021 praying the Court to dismiss the suit by striking out all the pleadings in toto and the said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 and the plaintiffs were directed to carry out amendment accordingly and to file a neat copy of the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred CRP.No.2062 of 2022, however, the same was dismissed. After dismissal of the said CRP, the plaintiffs filed IA.No.501 of 2023 under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC seeking to grant leave/permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit against the defendants on the same cause of action; that in the said application, it was averred that the suit was initially filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and due to typographical error, the earlier counsel on record has altered the same when the bundle was returned by the office with certain objections and subsequently, the suit was numbered. It was further averred that the plaintiff who originally filed the suit has no educational qualification and therefore, he has no knowledge of the draft prepared by the earlier advocate on record. It was further averred that the plaintiffs are in occupation of the suit schedule property and if the amendments are carried out, the same would affect their rights and that they cannot be put to loss or sufferance because of mistakes committed by the counsel. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought permission of the Court to withdraw the suit and to institute a suit afresh and further averred that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants if the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the suit and institute a suit afresh on the same cause of action. 5. Defendant No.3 filed counter resisting the said application and contended that initially, the suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and later on, the relief of recovery of possession was deleted and it is corrected as perpetual injunction without leave of the Court and by playing fraud on the Court. In those circumstances, defendant No.3 filed IA.No.811 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 16 CPC for dismissal of the suit by striking out the pleadings and the same was allowed and the Revision preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 and when the suit was coming up for carrying out the amendment, the present application is filed on untenable grounds. It was further averred that the present application is filed after a lapse of 17 years from the date of filing of the suit by making false allegations against the earlier counsel. 6. Defendant No.3 further denied the contention of plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and that the amendment was being carried out as per the orders of the Court. It was further averred that the plaintiffs failed to assign valid or sufficient reason for filing an application seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a suit afresh and finally, contended that the defendants would be put to loss and hardship if the same is allowed and prayed to dismiss the application. 7. It was further averred that the plaintiffs failed to assign valid or sufficient reason for filing an application seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a suit afresh and finally, contended that the defendants would be put to loss and hardship if the same is allowed and prayed to dismiss the application. 7. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.04.2024 allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- and directed the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit within a period of one month, failing which, liberty granted stands dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.3 contended that having allowed the application-IA.No.811 of 2021 which was filed to strike off unauthorised/illegal amendments in the plaint, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. He further contended that the trial Court committed grave error in allowing the application without considering the fact that the application has been filed nearly after two decades of filing the suit; that the trial Court failed to appreciate the application from proper perspective and further, failed to record any reasons while allowing the application. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to examine the period of limitation and failed to analyse the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions, though the same were referred to, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sajjanam Wadla China Rajayya Vs. Chappal Venkateshwar Rao , [ AIR 1959 AP 349 ] , wherein it is held that Order XXIII Rule 2 CPC prescribes that in any fresh suit instituted on permission granted, the plaintiff shall be bound by law of limitation as if the first suit has not been instituted and further, held that the Court had no jurisdiction to fix any time for filing suits or presenting fresh complaints. 10. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court had rightly allowed the application since the parties cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of counsel. He further contended that the suit was filed in the year 2005 and an application for striking off the pleadings in the plaint was filed by the defendants in the year 2021 and a Revision filed against the order passed in the said IA was dismissed by this Court on 03.03.2025 and thereafter immediately, the present application was filed. Therefore, the contention of defendant No.3 that the present application was filed after a period of two decades is incorrect. He further contended that when the suit was coming up for carrying out amendments in terms of orders passed in IA.No.811 of 2021, the present application was filed even before carrying out amendments, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further contended that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants since all the grounds available under law can be raised by them in the fresh suit to be filed, therefore, the trial Court, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly allowed the application and the revision petitioner failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Orissa in Trinath Basant Rav and another Vs. Sk.Mohamood and another , [ AIR 2019 Ori 78 ] , wherein a Division Bench of Orissa High Court at paras 12 and 13 of its judgment observed as hereunder:- “12. The Apex Court had an occasion to interprete the scope and ambit of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 Order 23 CPC in V. Rajendran v. Annasamy Pandian (dead) through legal representatives Karthyayani Natchiar, (2017) 5 SCC 63 . Taking a cue from K.S. Bhoopathy, the Apex Court held 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. 13. Taking a cue from K.S. Bhoopathy, the Apex Court held 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. 13. In interpreting 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).” 12. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the trial Court by referring to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Bhoopathy ’s case (cited supra) has allowed the application, however, the trial Court failed to record the reasons for exercising discretionary power vested in it and thereby, permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and to file fresh suit on same cause of action. The trial Court has also failed to consider the aspect of limitation since the fresh suit to be instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and injunction shall be within the period of limitation from the date of cause of action. 13. As per Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a) CPC, the Court shall grant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit when it is satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. 14. In Trinath Basant Rav ’s case (cited supra), the High Court of Orissa held that Court has been given a wide discretion to allow withdrawal of the suit in the interest of justice in case where such a prayer is not covered by clause (a) and further observed that the words ‘sufficient grounds’ in clause (b) should be read independent of the words ‘formal defect’ and clause (a). 15. 15. Now, it has to be examined whether the case of the plaintiffs falls under clause (a) or clause (b) of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC and whether the trial Court is justified in allowing the application. 16. It is appropriate to refer to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Bhoopathy Vs. Kokila , [ (2000) 5 SCC 458 ] and V.Rajendran Vs. Annasamy Pandian (dead) thorugh LRs-Karthyayani Natchiar , [ (2017) 5 SCC 63 ] , wherein it is held that the Court can permit plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and to institute fresh suit if the Court is satisfied that sufficient grounds are made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the power under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC is discretionary and the same has to be exercised by the Court with caution and circumspection while granting leave to institute a fresh suit. 17. Perusal of record would disclose that the plaintiffs are blaming their earlier counsel for carrying out amendments in the plaint without leave of the court and that the original plaintiff has no educational qualification to understand and no knowledge of the draft prepared by their earlier counsel. It is interesting to note that the plaintiffs are not claiming that the original plaintiff is illiterate but are simply contending that the original plaintiff has no educational qualification. It is the apt to note the legal maxim that ignorantia juris non excusat , which means ignorance of law excuses no one. The original plaintiff having signed the plaint and having presented the same before the Court cannot now turn around and say that he has no educational qualification and as such, he has no knowledge of the draft prepared by initial/earlier counsel. The plaintiffs except saying that the parties cannot be made to suffer for mistakes of their counsel, have not raised or agitated any other ground, much less sufficient reason or ground for permitting them to withdraw the suit and to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action. 18. The plaintiffs except saying that the parties cannot be made to suffer for mistakes of their counsel, have not raised or agitated any other ground, much less sufficient reason or ground for permitting them to withdraw the suit and to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action. 18. It is relevant to note that initially, the suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and the same has been corrected in the plaint to that of declaration and perpetual injunction without leave of the Court, and such corrections amount to taking a different stand altogether and ultimately, it amounts to changing the very nature of the suit. Therefore, the same cannot be construed as a formal defect in the suit and further, no sufficient grounds or reasons have been made out by the plaintiffs while seeking permission to withdraw the suit and to file a suit afresh on the same cause of action. The trial Court has not analysed the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and also the purport of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.501 of 2023 in OS.No.205 of 2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad is set aside. 20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:03.04.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked. B/o dr