the same stood incorporated even in the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Annexure P/10 and also might have been incorporated in earlier jamabandi after sanction of mutation Annexure P/11 on 30.6.1998. While filing suit in the year 2008, the plaintiffs were supposed to annex latest jamabandi with the plaint. Since the alleged exchange stood incorporated in the revenue record including jamabandi for the year 2004-05, the plaintiffs while filing suit in February, 2008 could not have been ignorant of the alleged exchange. Consequently, no ground is made out for permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw the instant suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the case of Jai Prakash (supra), the trial court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit but did not grant liberty to file fresh suit. It was observed that the application for withdrawing suit with liberty to file fresh suit could either be accepted or rejected in toto and could not be allowed by withdrawal of the suit without liberty to file fresh suit. However, no such proposition of law is involved in the instant revision petition. This judgment is completely irrelevant and should not have been cited. In the case of Damyanti Rani Baksh (supra), there was formal defect in the suit, but inspite thereof, the trial court refused permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the ground that alleged formal defect in plaint could be cured
