7sa485-06.sxw 1 spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2006 Shri Bapu Rajaram Sangale ... Appellant. Vs. Shri Shyamsundar B. Sonawane & Anr. ....Respondents --- Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for the Appellant. Mr. Vilas Tapkir for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. --- CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED :- 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 Taken for final hearing forthwith by consent of the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Respondents. 2 The original Respondents have filed Civil Suit No. 50 of 2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dvn, Daund for declaration and possession and perpetual injunction. Prior to the filing of the suit one of the properties was sold by Navnath Khandu Girme and others on 17th October, 2002 and during the pendency of the suit the other properties 7sa485-06.sxw 2 were sold in favour of the same purchaser by sale deed dated 22nd November, 2002 and 20th August, 2003. The leaned Civil Judge, Jr. Dvn. Daund dismissed the suit on 24.03.2004. The original Plaintiffs filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2004 which has been partly allowed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Baramati by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 2005 and though a decree for perpetual injunction is not granted, the Decree for possession of farm-house has been granted. Against this decree, the present Appellant has filed the Second Appeal. 3 The Second Appeal has been admitted by the learned single Judge (R.V.More,J) on 2nd December, 2008 by framing the following questions of law. 1) Whether the cause of action to the respondent -plaintiff to file suit for injunction and possession of the suit property against the appellant-defendant would survive in view of the admitted facts as mentioned by the Trial Court in para 17 that respondent -plaintiff has sold the suit property to one Navnath Khandu Girme by registered sale deeds dated 17.10.2002 and 2.11.2002 i.e. during the pendency of the suit? 7sa485-06.sxw 3 4 Today, Mr. Tapkir states that the Respondent No.1-original Plaintiff No.1 and the heirs of Respondent No.2/Original Plaintiff No.2 have instructed him to unconditionally withdraw the RC Suit No.50/2002. This prayer is not opposed by the learned Advocate for the Appellant. Hence, the Respondents are allowed to unconditionally withdraw RC Suit No. 50/2002. As a result of this withdrawal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the District Court do not survive and consequently, the entire Second Appeal is disposed off on account of unconditional withdrawal of the suit by the original Plaintiffs. It is clarified that in case the subsequent purchasers adopt any proceeding all rights and contentions of the said purchaser as also Appellants-Defendants are expressly kept open and the Appellants will be entitled to defend such suit if filed by raising all contentions which may be available to the Appellants. It is further clarified that this court has not gone into merits or de-merits of the respective cases which arise from the suit which has now been withdrawn. [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]