:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1990 OF 2008 Shri Rajabhau Rambhau Golande ..Petitioner Vs. Mr. Nair Premkumar Shankaran @ Babu Nair and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Tanaji Mhatukde i/by Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 11/12/2007 passed by the learned I/c. Civil Judge, J.D. (P.C.M.C.), Akurdi the application at Exh.42 has been allowed. The said application was filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. and it was opposed by the present petitioner on the ground that withdrawal and disposal of the suit would amount to granting benefit of interim order maliciously obtained by the plaintiff. The trial :2: court noted that the interim order was challenged by the present petitioner in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2007 which was pending before the Lower Appellate Court and in the said appeal the proceedings in RCS No. 24/07 were not stayed. If the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. the grant of permission to the plaintiff to such withdrawal is mere formality. The trial court also noted that the defendant was not estopped from his remedy if the suit was allowed to be withdrawn as the said withdrawal was unconditional. While opposing the withdrawal application it was contended by the present petitioner that before withdrawal order was passed, status quo ante should be restored. This prayer has been turned down. 2. I do not find any error on the face of the record that has been committed by the trial court in passing the order dated 11/12/2007 allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally. At the same time, the trial court has precluded the plaintiff from filing any fresh suit on the same cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioner :3: referred to the scheme of Section 151 of C.P.C. and it is clear that the petitioner cannot invoke the same provision while opposing the application filed for withdrawal. His remedy may be some where else or in some other proceedings. 3. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)