IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4166/2008 Sonabai Narayan Gurav and Ors. Petitioners Vs. Ruth Edward Fernandis and Ors. Respondents Mr.P.RArjunwadkar for the petitioners Mr.S.M.Kamble i/b Mr.F.A.Mulla Advocate for the respondentno.10 Coram: A.M.Khanwilkar ,J. Date : 10th July,2008 P.C. 1] Heard counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.10. This petition is filed making peculiar grievance before the High Court . 2] The petitioners had applied to the lower court for withdrawal of the application being Misc.Application no.202/2007, which in turn prays for restoration of the suit. The consequence of allowing petitioner's application Exh.40 is that the Misc. Application no.202 / 2007 will stand withdrawn-as a result of which the order passed in the suit dismissing it for non prosecution will continue to operate. In other words ,the petitioners/plaintiff no.1 and 4 to 7 are not interested in pursuing the suit. This request is made by the petitioners as they want the suit to be withdrawn unconditionally. 2 Significantly ,the application for restoration of suit is filed only by plaintiff no.1 and not any other plaintiff. Never the less, even other plaintiffs alongwith plaintiff no.1 have now approached the lower court to permit them to withdraw the application being M.A.no.202/2007 . 3] The fact that intervention applications have been filed by third parties cannot be the basis to prolong the final order on the request of the petitioners for withdrawal of the subject (Misc.Application). As the request of the petitioners is for permission to withdraw the proceeding unconditionally, there can be no tangible reason for the Court to not accept that request in the fact situation of the present case. The third parties who have filed intervention applications, two of which are already disposed of (Exh.18 and 53), would make no difference to the situation. For, the third parties have only applied for intervention and not to transpose themselves as plaintiffs with liberty to prosecute the proceeding. 4] It is also significant to note that the original suit filed by the plaintiffs was only for the relief of injunction . Even if the third parties are members of the joint family and are affected by any action, they will have to take recourse to substantial remedy, but cannot obstruct the request of the petitioners for withdrawal of the restoration application bearing M.A.No.202/2007 . In my opinion, the lower court has mixed up the issue of intervention with unconditional withdrawal 3 of the suit .If the proceedings are withdrawn unconditionally, no other issue will have to be considered by the Court. 5] This petition is disposed of with direction to the Lower Court to pass appropriate order on application being M.A.202/2007 forthwith and not later than one week from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.)