-: 1 :- wp-1660/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1660 OF 2011 Gulshan Salim Chauhan. ..Petitioner. Versus Farida Iqbal Mansoori & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. D. B. Bhosale for the petitioner. Mr. G. M. Savagave for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 16, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Savagave, learned counsel for respondent no.1. By the impugned order, 1st respondent’s application for withdrawal of the application filed for withdrawal of Election Petition is allowed. 2. The 1st respondent filed election petition bearing No. 32 of 2007 challenging election of the petitioner to the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation on various grounds including the corrupt practices on the part of petitioner. However, on 6/1/2010 the 1st respondent filed an application seeking leave to withdraw the aforesaid election petition. 3. The 1st respondent thereafter on 18/1/2010 filed another application, wherein she averred that earlier application filed by srp -: 2 :- wp-1660/11 her seeking leave to withdraw the election petition was filed due to personal problem and under mental pressure. It was also submitted that she did not understand the complications and/or result of same. Accordingly, the prayer was made for withdrawal of the earlier application seeking leave to withdraw the election petition. This application was allowed by the order dated 25th January 2011, which is impugned in this petition. 4. The ground on which 1st respondent has sought withdrawal of her earlier application for withdrawal of election petition, was that her evidence is complete, however, petitioner gave list of 22 witnesses and the election petition could not be disposed of in spite of its pendency for more than three and half years. It was also contended that respondent no.1 apprehended that the election petition may not be heard expeditiously and will take long time to dispose of, therefore under mental pressure she had filed earlier application seeking leave withdraw election petition. This explanation is accepted by the Court below and respondent no.1 was permitted to withdraw her earlier application seeking leave to withdraw the election petition. 5. That apart, the election petition is not a suit between two persons or parties, but it is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal interested party and respondent no.1 cannot -: 3 :- wp-1660/11 withdraw or abandon a part of her claim on analogy of Order-XXIII, Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Though application for withdrawal of election petition was filed, no order granting leave to withdraw the same was granted by the Court and within 15 days, respondent no.1 applied for withdrawal of the said application. In these circumstances, in my view, respondent no.1 was within her right to apply for withdrawal of her earlier application and Court has rightly granted the request of respondent no.1. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is rejected. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of election petition. (RANJIT MORE, J.)