1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 497 OF 2007 Smt. Mingelina Gracias e Barreto (since dec.) by LR's (a) Smt. Antimisia Carmelina Barreto Menezes & anr. .... Petitioners V/s Communidade of Nagorcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.A. Kamat. Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2008 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16/12/2005 in Regular Civil Suit No. 24/2002. 3. When the said appeal was pending, an application was filed, copy of which is at page 117. That application stated that the appellant found the extracts of process and other documents, more particularly, referred to therein and in the light of that the appellant/original plaintiff does not desire to challenge the judgment and decree of the trial Court but desires to withdraw the suit upon which the said judgment and decree has been rendered. That 2 application was disallowed by the lower appellate Court by holding that what the appellant is relying upon are clerical errors and when there is enough power to allow amendments to pleadings and admit evidence, errors can be corrected by amendments and proved by evidence. Therefore the suit need not be allowed to be withdrawn. 4. Relying upon these observations, the original appellant filed an application for amendment which application has been allowed and that is how the respondents to the appeal and original defendants to the suit have invoked the writ jurisdiction. After the matter was argued for sometime, I indicated to the learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff/appellant that if the plaintiff is still ready and willing to withdraw his suit, then appropriate orders and directions can be issued. Time was sought to take instructions and the matter was placed today. Today, original plaintiff no.1 in RCS No. 24/2002 instructs his Counsel to apply for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit claiming identical reliefs. In such circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice would be subserved if the lower appellate Court's order on the application for withdrawal dated 20/07/2007 is quashed and set aside and the application for withdrawal dated 1/11/2006 is granted. Resultantly, Regular Civil Appeal No. 9/2006 and Regular Civil Suit No. 24/2002 are both allowed to be withdrawn. The appellants/original plaintiffs in RCS No. 24/2002 shall be at liberty to file a 3 fresh suit seeking identical reliefs and all pleas in that behalf of both sides so also the defences are kept open. Petition disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NH/-