IA 3945/2011 IN WPMS 115/2008 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Bhupesh Kandpal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Sri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2. Urgency Application is allowed. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and during its pendency, moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. for withdrawal of the application. This application was rejected by the court below on the ground that the applicant, who had presented the application for withdrawal of the application, was not competent as there was no proper authorization. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, have filed the present writ petition. From a perusal of the record, the Court finds that admittedly, no permission was given by the court below under Section 92 C.P.C. and therefore, it was always open to the petitioners to move an application for withdrawal of their application filed under Section 92 C.P.C. Since the application was not accompanied by a proper authorization, the said application was rejected by the court below. Without going into the veracity and legality of the order as to whether proper authorization was filed by the petitioners or not along with their application, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing that in the event, the petitioners file a fresh application for withdrawal of their application filed under Section 92 C.P.C. along with proper authorization, the same shall be considered by the court below without being influenced by the earlier order given by the court. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 29-11-2011 SP