1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.339 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.395 OF 2004 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1195 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2003 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.1266 OF 2001 IN SUIT NO.1089 OF 1999 Rohit M. Sanghvi .. Appellant Vs. Pankaj C. Gandhi & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rohit M. Sanghvi, appellant in person Dr.Pankaj C. Gandhi, respondent nos.1 in person Ms.Jyoti P. Gandhi, respondent nos.2 in person CORAM : J. N. Patel & Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ DATE : July 27, 2009 P.C. : 1. The parties are appearing in person. They are litigating in various courts on different issues with which we are not concerned. The appellant who is in person has moved this court that he may be permitted to withdraw the 2 appeal preferred by him impugning the orders passed by the learned single Judge on 7.2.08 and 19.6.08 in the suit pending before the learned single Judge i.e. Summary Suit No.1089 of 1999. 2. The respondent in the appeal and the original obstructionist who are related as husband and wife have drawn the attention of this court to the fact that the respondent Dr.Pankaj C. Gandhi has preferred a Review Petition (L) No.11 of 2009 in the matter before the court of Hon ble the Chief Justice in ’ respect to the order passed on 6.2.09 and the same is pending and, therefore, the appellant Rohit M. Sanghvi should not be permitted to withdraw this appeal. 3. Further, it is contended by Ms.Jyoti P. Gandhi that the appellant Rohit M. Sanghvi is indulging into vexatious litigation and harassing them and as and when a particular litigation reaches a stage which is inconvenient to him, he is in the habit of withdrawing the same and, therefore, this appeal should not be permitted to be withdrawn without imposing heavy costs. 4. We have gone through the impugned orders and also the order dated 6.2.09 passed by the Bench presided over by Honourable the Chief Justice. In our considered view, pendency of the Review Petition does not in any manner affect the right of the appellant to withdraw this appeal, if he so desires, and there is no legal impediment to permit withdrawal of such appeal if a review petition of the nature seeking review of the order dt.6.2.09 is pending 3 before the Bench. 5. It was argued by Dr.Pankaj C. Gandhi that the review petition is filed with the object that the appellant should not escape punishment for his conduct before the first court and if this appeal is withdrawn, it would defeat one of the major purpose of filing the review petition and there are lot many points which are there to be adjudicated and that the review petition deserves to be heard on merits not only in the interest of the parties, particularly, the review petitioner, but also in the interest of justice. 6. Well, this cannot be a reason to refuse the prayer of the appellant to permit him to withdraw the appeal. In so far as the claim of cost is concerned, it is always at the discretion of the court and particularly in this matter when the appeal is yet to be registered and is only on the stage of Lodging, been given a lodging number, the appellant can very well be permitted to withdraw the same. Therefore, we permit the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ( J. N. Patel, J) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar, J)