IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.119 of 2008. Date of decision: 20.05.2010 EIH Limited & Others ….Appellants Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr.Sudipto Sarkar & R.L. Sood, Senior Advocates with M/s.A.T. Patra, Nipun Malhotra, B.C. Negi and Arjun Lall, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr.K.D. Sood and Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocates. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral). Though several questions have been mooted by learned counsel appearing on both sides, ultimately we find that the appellant is essentially aggrieved by order dated 20th August, 2008 (Annexure A-9) in OMP No.400 of 2007 in Arbitration Case No.60 of 2005. That miscellaneous application was filed praying for deletion of certain observations in the order passed by learned Single Judge in CMP No.250 of 2006 in the same Arbitration Case. That application was filed by the respondents herein for permission to recall the witnesses. The said application was dismissed by order dated 21st May, 2007 with certain observations. The appellant apprehended that those observations in the order would stand in the way of further course to be adopted and might prejudice the outcome of the case as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 well. Hence OMP No.400 of 2007 was filed seeking expunction of those observations. The learned Single Judge, however, not only declined to delete the observations but rather has explained the position still further placing the appellant in a still worse position. Learned Senior Counsel on instruction submits that the appellant hence may be permitted to withdraw the application. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we do find that there could be any tenable objection in that regard though the request is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. After all, it is the appellant’s application for clarification and it is open to the party to seek the permission of the court to withdraw the same and the court should normally grant the same particularly since no prejudice whatsoever is caused to anybody. Accordingly, we permit the appellant to withdraw OMP No. 400 of 2007 in Arbitration Case No. 60 of 2005. Therefore, the order dated 20th August,2008 in OMP No. 400 of 2007 in Arbitration Case No. 60 of 2005 is set aside and the OMP will stand dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Appeal is disposed of as above. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 20, 2010 (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (aks) Judge.