dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8247 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8247 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8247 OF 2008 Jehangir Wadia & ors. Petitioners Vs. Anant Rajaram Palav Respondent. Mr.Ahmed Sayed & Amitha Poojari i/b. M/s.Consult Legal for the Petitioners. Mr.Suresh Gole for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 18th December 2008. : 18th December 2008. : 18th December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The plaintiff withdrew the suit by filing application dated 8.10.2008 and the only sentence is as under: ‘My Lord may permit to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the suit on same cause of action.‘ 2. When objected the plaintiff filed and given some reasons. 3. The learned Judge, however, by impugned order dated 28.11.2008 gave detailed reason and permitted to ( 2 ) withdraw the present suit with liberty to file fresh suit under Order 23, Rule 1B of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The said Rule 1B of CPC contemplates the satisfaction of the court to permit withdrawal of the suit with liberty. The requirement of satisfaction must flow from the basic application which plaintiff or a party should file. 4. The court has given reasons based upon submissions and rival contentions and/or rejoinder. There is no question of adding reasons to the application which is apparently vague and without any justification whatsoever. 5. It is not a question of simple withdrawal of the suit. When the party files suit and wait for more than a year and then seeks liberty to withdraw the said suit to file on the same cause of action, this, unless provided with sufficient material and subjective satisfaction of the court is impermissible. This wastes time and energy of every one. 6. Therefore without observing anything on the merits of the matter, I am of the view that this order deserves interference. So I am quashing the said impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the ( 3 ) plaintiff/respondent to file an appropriate application accordingly. 7. In the result, the suit is restored with above liberty. The petition is allowed accordingly. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)