Tfi;r iiNyLS i ^ ^ • ic' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (SFWfc) N0. "i^S'B /2010 c$ t.n'-S. P2- •' Smt. Savitri Bai, W/o. Shri Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 68 years, R/o. Gondpara, ^v»'ss^r?'^)?S-- ••• Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C-G-)- ,V^/~"1 VERSUS *ETITIONER. ^^d^ RESPONDENT/ fpl.aJQVi.y v^ Kedar Nath, S/o. Laxmi F'rasad Saraf, aged about 61 years, R/o. Gondpara, Tehsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 ^F THE^ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTIQN OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ,i:i" ^?*;a ,i °l'i'.»JI">''-"'<^'' ^s^/^ '^. •' '^ HK3H COURT OF CHHATTRGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kunw Mishra Whrit Prtifion (227»No.1238 / 2010 PETITtONER RESPQNQENT Vereys Smt. Sanntai Bai KedarNath Shri Sateem Kazi, couns^ forthe petitioner. WRtT PETmON UNDER ARTNSLE 227 OF THE C(»ISTmmONOF JNTOA ORALOJTOER (08.09.2010) The p^itioner had preferred CivU Suit No. 1&-A^5 whhsh was wtthdram on 05-01-2007. At the time of allowhig the prayer fw wnthdrawat of suit the triat Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on ttre ^itioner/plaintiff. (2) This oreter of impositimi of cost was challenged by ttie pefflioner in W.P.(227) No. 6659 of ^X)9. The writ p^ttion rame up for hearmg on 16-11 -2009 and the followir^ order wa»passed by ttiis Court:- "Shri Sateem Kazi, counse/ fortfte peffidoner. Leamed wunsel appearing for (he peWonw, on msfrucfon, seefcs perrossron of ttiis Court te wffihcfraw thispeWon. Pemvs&on gfantect, as prayed for. AccofCSngly, #re peffifon s di»rossecf as withdrawn." (3) Thus, the eartier writ petition preferred agahret the impi^ned order (Annexure Prt) was withdrawn simpltoter without seeWng or reserving the liberty to fite another writ petitton. ss» ~':3')it~<<- 2-' (4) In the matter of Stirgi^a Traosport Senfce »s. Strte Transpoft Apfwllale WlwmaF, Gwa/for reported in AIR 1887 SC 88 Hon'bte the Supreme Court white deartir®with a simitar situation has held that when a writ petiHon is withdrawn without seeking liberty to fite fresh petition, the subsequent p^ition on fte saune cause of action is not maintainable. (5) tn view of the law laid-down by the Hon'Me Supreme Court the indant petition is dismissed as not maintainaMe. s^i^^^a t^ss^ ^^^^ !]^ iia^Hi'ssasi^