1. We are asked by the appellants' Vakil to allow his clients to withdraw their suit with leave to bring a fresh suit with regard to the same matter. The plaint and the proceedings in the lower Courts show that while the facts relating to the right of management of the plaint temple are set out and proved, the plaintiffs had no clear conception of the exact nature of their rights. We think that enough has been shown to justify us in allowing the suit to be withdrawn with leave to bring a fresh suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code Act V of 1908. The appellants must pay the respondents' costs in the second appeal.