1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7374 OF 2007 Vijaykumar Laxman Sonawane .. Petitioner Versus Solapur Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairdi for petitioner Ms.C.Deshmukh h/f. V.B.Naik for respondent No.1 Mr.G.S.Godbole and Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th March 2008 P.C. . This petition challenges an order passed by the trial court below Exh.150. That was an application seeking liberty of the trial court to withdraw prayer clause 6(aa) in plaint in R.C.S.No.395 of 2001. 2. That application is granted partly. 2 Petitioner plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the said prayer but no liberty was granted to file fresh suit in that behalf. 3. Having perused the petition I am of the opinion that the trial court has not considered this application in the light of the settled legal principles. Whether the liberty needs to be granted or not is a matter between the plaintiff and the court. The court need not go into the aspect as to whether any application was made by the petitioner plaintiff before the Collector or not before he sought such withdrawal and liberty to file fresh suit. 4. In any event, the issue is academic, inasmuch as Mr.Khairdi states that the petitioner has given him instructions to make a statement that the petitioner plaintiff would apply for withdrawal of the suit itself, being R.C.S.Suit No.395 of 2001, by making appropriate application 3 in the trial court and seek liberty of the trial court to file fresh suit. In such circumstances, he has instructions to withdraw Exh.150 with liberty to file above application for withdrawal of the suit afresh. In the light of withdrawal of Exh.150 which was filed in the trial court and upon which the impugned order has been passed, it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions. The order under challenge does not, therefore, survive in the light of withdrawal of Exh.150 application. The same is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application for withdrawal of the suit as urged by Mr.Khairdi. Needless to state that in such application the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for withdrawal of the suit seek permission to file a fresh suit as well. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. Petition disposed of. No costs. 4 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)