1 WP4254.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2011 Ranjit Rajaram Patil ... Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Avinath Belge i/by Kirankumar Phakade for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATED: 10TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is not in dispute that the reliefs claimed in this petition are identical to the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No.7989 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.12.2009 as the petitioner 2 WP4254.11 withdrew the same. No liberty was sought by the petitioner to institute fresh petition for the same reliefs. In view of the settled position, the successive petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief cannot be entertained. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kandapazha Nadar & ors. v/s Chitraganiammal & ors., reported in 2007 A.I.R. SCW 2313. Reliance on this decision is misplaced. In that case, the defendant had filed suit which was withdrawn without liberty. In the subsequent suit he was made defendant. The plaintiff objected to defendant taking plea which was taken by him in the suit filed by him which was withdrawn without liberty. In the fact situation of that case, therefore, the Court observed that merely because the suit filed by the defendant was withdrawn by him without liberty, would not estop him from raising defence regarding the validity of the conveyance in the suit filed against him by the plaintiff. Suffice it to observe that reliance on this judgment is inappropriate. Reliance was then placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Yousuf Ali Abdulla Fazalbhoy v/s M. S. Kasbekar, reported in 1982 A.I.R. (Bom) 135. Reliance 3 WP4254.11 was placed on paragraph 11 of the said decision. The observations in paragraph 11 in the said decision are on the basis of fact and situation of that case. 4. We are of the considered opinion that successive writ petition cannot be entertained once the petitioner has withdrawn the petition without liberty. It would be a different matter if the petitioner was to approach the Court for clarification or modification of the order passed in the earlier petition which was withdrawn without liberty. In absence of such clarification, it is not open to entertain second petition for the same relief. 5. Hence, writ petition dismissed. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 4 WP4254.11