1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5426 OF 2009 Vitthal s/o Malku Sangade ...Petitioner Versus Bhagwan s/o Malku Sangade and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 20TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order passed by the trial court. The trial court by impugned order rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for withdrawal of the suit and to file fresh suit on the ground that there are formal defects in the earlier suit. The learned Judge has observed that the application does not disclose sufficient ground to exercise discretion under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. and further it is observed that the suit is of the year 1997 and the application for withdrawal of the suit is filed in the year 2008 and has dismissed the application of the petitioner. 2 2 On careful perusal of the order, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/