1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 03.05.2010 Mr. P.M. Shah, Sr. Counsel, with Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate and Mr. A.N. Sabnis, Advocate present for the appellant. 2. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant No.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated briefly as under. R.C.S. No. 316/1993 came to be filed by the plaintiffs who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Suit was filed against the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 for perpetual injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur decided to proceed without W.S., as No W.S. was filed. Ultimately, the suit 2 came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, there was application for restoration bearing M.A. No.188/1998 which came to be allowed and the matter was decided as per application Exhibit-25 given by the plaintiffs. As per said application, the plaintiffs contended that the suit was wrongly instituted by the plaintiffs. The suit was disposed of and Writ Petition came to be filed. In Writ Petition No. 2797/2008 the Court was pleased to set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the trial Court with liberty to the plaintiffs to file appropriate application for striking of the pleadings. Thereafter, the application Exhibit-36 came to be allowed and No W.S. order was also set aside. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur on 18-09-2009. Being aggrieved thereby R.C.A. No. 173/2009 was filed. Learned Additional District Judge, Latur by order dated 26-02-2010, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and remitted back the matter to the trial Court with directions to the plaintiff to comply the order passed by the High Court. Thereafter, pursis was filed by the plaintiffs in 3 the trial Court for withdrawal of the suit and the suit came to be disposed of as withdrawn, and it is this order, which is challenged in this second appeal. 3. In the circumstances, when the withdrawal was not said to be a conditional withdrawal, the learned Advocate of the appellant is unable to convince me how the plaintiffs could be prevented from withdrawing the suit filed by them. Under no provisions of law, the plaintiffs could be compelled to proceed with their suit. In the circumstances, no cause has remained for this Court to entertain the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/MAY10/sa284.10