1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3670/2010 Shankar K. Deokar and others Vs. State of Mah. and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. N. N. Mothghare, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. A. A. Naik, Adv. for respondents 3 and 4. Mr. Yengal, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2010. Heard. In the suit instituted in 2007 after petitioner/plaintiff was cross-examined application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC was moved seeking leave to withdraw with liberty to file fresh suit on same cause of action. That application was rejected by speaking order. In view of that rejection application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was moved and in that application it was contended that present counsel expressed desire to visit spot and after that visit he was taken by surprise as factual 2 position available on spot was not disclosed in plaint. Some allegations are also made against earlier counsel. That application for amendment is also rejected by the impugned order. According to Advocate Motghare for no fault on the part of plaintiff serious prejudice will be caused to him as in absence of any material pleadings the suit may not succeed. His contention is either liberty to institute fresh suit on same cause of action should have been given or then the suit as filed ought to have been permitted to be amended. Advocate Naik for respondents 3 and 4 has supported the impugned order. Learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 has also supported impugned order. Story which has been pleaded in application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was not pleaded in the application moved under Order 23 Rule 1 of 3 CPC. The date or stage at which counsel was changed has also not come on record. In view of this position, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order after the suit is finally decided, present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE ambulkar