' The petitioners filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. For seeking permission to withdraw the suit with prayer to file fresh one. This application was allowed vide order dated 24-3- 1996. Against this order a revision petition was filed by the respondents, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur vide judgment and decree dated 28-10-1997. This Constitutional petition has been instituted against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge Kasur dated 28-10-1997.
2. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned Trial Court for deciding the application of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law and the parties were directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 6-11-1997. The learned Additional District Judge has provided an opportunity to the respondents to establish their case before the learned Trial Court and the case has not yet finally been decided. The observation of the learned Additional District Judge is that in the application submitted by the petitioners it was simply stated that there were some technical defects in their suit. However, no such defect was disclosed and while granting permission to the withdrawal of the suit the learned Trial Court also did not assign any reason as to why the permission was necessarily required to be granted for filing fresh suit. Under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2), C.P.C. The court before granting permission to the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit after withdrawing the earlier one must satisfy itself that there was sufficient ground of some formal defect which was necessary for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit, but the learned Trial Court did not advert to all these requirements and did not pass a speaking order. I see no reason to interfere in the judgment and decree dated 28-10-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to pass a speaking order after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties. This writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
In limine.