(1) WP. 5708.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5708 OF 2010 Sanjay Natthu Patel and anr. .. Petitioners VERSUS Supadu Paulad Patil and anr. .. Respondents Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 1ST JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. By the impugned order dated 18.3.2010 the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed withdrawal of the suit bearing R.C.S. 36 of 2006. The petitioners are original defendants 1 and 2. They objected withdrawal of the suit with leave to file afresh suit on same cause of action. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff was that there were defects in the suit including absence of challenge to the sale deed which purportedly executed by him. He asserted that there were two different sale deeds which were relied upon by the petitioners (defendants) and therefore he wanted to file two different suits challenging the said sale deeds. It is important to notice that the permission sought by (2) WP. 5708.2010 the respondent has been granted by allowing the application (Exh.48). The prayer in the application (Exh.48) may be reproduced as follows:- "6] The plaintiff therefore prays that-- A] Permission to withdraw the suit and leave to institute fresh suit in respect of subject matter to the plaintiff may kindly be granted. B] Any other further legal and equitable reliefs in favour of plaintiff be granted." 2] Perusal of the above prayer do not show that withdrawal was sought for filing of the fresh suit on same cause of action nor any permission was sought to extend the limitation period. The plaintiff is dominus lites and can withdraw the suit. The question of limitation for afresh suit is not concluded by the impugned order and is therefore available as an open issue. In this view of the matter, the Petition is destitute of merits and dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp