kbp 1 3822-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3822 OF 2008 Niranjan M. Teckchandani ..Petitioner Vs. G.Chandrashekhar Shivam and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.S.P.Kanuga, for petitioner. Mr.P.J.Thorat, for respondent no.1. Mr.S.M.Kamble, for respondent no.4. Mr.M.R.Jakade, for intervenor. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 15 th OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the constituted attorney of the first respondent seeks permission to intervene. However, a Civil Application for intervention filed by him being Civil Application No.1650 of 2008 has been dismissed on 11 th June, 2009. Therefore, this party cannot be allowed to intervene. 2] Learned Counsel for the first respondent, on instruction of the first respondent, states that the said respondent does not desire to prosecute the Regular Civil Suit No.129 of 2007. The statement is accepted. 3] The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the trial Court on 27 th August, 2008 on the withdrawal pursis at Exhibit 91 filed by the first respondent. By the said pursis, kbp 2 3822-08.sxw he stated that he was desirous of withdrawing the suit and the so called Constituted Attorney (intervenor) was not entitled to institute the suit on his behalf. The said withdrawal pursis is ordered to be filed on the ground that the first respondent-plaintiff did not appear before the trial court and did not affirm the contents of the pursis. Now, learned counsel for the first respondent, on instructions of the first respondent, has made a categorical statement that the first respondent does not desire to prosecute the said suit. In view of the said statement, the order dated 27 th March, 2008 will have to be quashed and set aside. In the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent on instruction, the trial court will have to pass an appropriate order on the said pursis at exhibit 91. 4] Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order: (a) The impugned order dated 27 th March, 2008 passed below Exhibit 91 is quashed and set aside. (b) The statement made by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent does not desire to prosecute the suit is accepted. (c) In view of the said statement, the trial Court shall proceed to pass the appropriate order on the pursis at Exhibit 91 in accordance with law. (d) There will be no order as to the costs. ( A.S.OKA, J. )