r&i^':i ^- H^B^ Lfc Bt^ IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIIASPDR W.P. (2271 N0._V3.a>'^ /2010 PETITIONERS -c>. p-^«c€<-n/ Cf^ >t-' .C' '% . /^% / 0";^A ^^^ ^J^€i ^er<<; -'-^ ?)" .::i? <c •e RBSPONDENT P\aJ^ ^ s-/ / ^- Smt. Savitri Bai, widow of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 68 years /-2. Smt Kirti Saraf widow of Late shri Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 58 years . 3. Siddharth Saraf S/o late shri Kanhaiya Lal Aged about 40 years ft. Subhash Saraf S/o late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Aged about 38 years 5. Shantnu Saraf S/o late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Aged about 36 years LRs of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal S/o Laxmi F>rasad Saraf. All residents of Gondpara Tahsil & District Bilaspur CG VERSUS / Kedar Nath, S/o. Laxmi Prasad Saraf, aged about 61 years, R/o. Gondpara, Tehsil SE District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTICgjjQE INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF^AWBIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS^ PROHIBITION. CBRTIORARI BTC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUST1CE IN THE MATTER C..Tf. 10— '"!'«,.'; H H COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justtee Prashant Ktnnw Mishra PETtTIONERS RESPONDENT Writ P^ition 1227) No.1237 / 2010 Smt. Savitri Bai and others Vereys Kedar Nalh Shri Sateem Ksei, counset Iwthe petitionere. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICUE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTK»1OF INDM ORALORDER (08.09.2010) The petiti<mers had preferred Civil Suft No. 18-AW wrtitoh was withdrawn on 05-01-2007. At the time of alltwing the prayer for withdrawal of suit the trial Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on Vhe petittoner/plaintiff. (2) This order of imposition of co^ was chaltenged by the pet'rtioner In W.P.{227) No. 6^5 of 2(X%. The writ p^jtion rame up fbr hearing on 16-11-2009 and the followir®order ws®pas^d by this Cmirt:- "Shfi Saleem Kazi, couns^ for the peWtoner. Leafned counse? afyearing for the pefftmner, on /nstrucfion, seeks pemwson of fe Court to withdraw tt»spetffioff. Pemss&oti granted, as prayed fw. AcconSngly, the peftron fe <Ssnisse<f as withdrsiwn," (3) Thus, the eariier writ petition preterred against ttie impugned order (Annexure P/1) was withdrawn sim{riiciter wthout seeking or reserving the liberty to fite another writ petition. @»sss®s ^sa^ li^B''"t'? / -i;? ^ littir (4) In the matter of Surfflija Transport Sawfce vs. Sfate Tlrwisport Appeffate Trftounaf, Gwa/for reportwl in Atf? 1887 SC 88 Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar situation has held that when a writ p^tion is wtthdrawn without seetdng liberty to fde fresh petition, the subsequent p^itiOTi on the same cause of action is not maintainabte. (5) In view of the lenw laid-down by the HOTi'ble Sup'eme Court the instant petition is ctismissed as not maintainable. ^..^*" ^^\^ ~!»-