IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17301 of 2011 Manoj Kumar @ Anil Kumar Versus Nathuni Prasad & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 28.09.2011 The learned counsel Mr. Khatim Reza appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court below rejected both the applications dated 12.10.2009 and 18.12.2009 wrongly. The application dated 12.10.2009 was filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff only filed the application dated 18.12.2009 praying therein to reject the application. In such circumstances, the learned court below should have either allowed or rejected the application dated 18.12.2009 only. The learned court below rejected the said application, meaning thereby that the suit stand withdrawn in view of the application dated 12.10.2009. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is some mistake in the impugned order. However, from perusal of the applications dated 12.10.2009 and 18.12.2009 it is clear that subsequently that is on 18.12.2009 the plaintiff filed application praying for rejecting the earlier application. Now, therefore, if the application dated 18.12.2009 is allowed then also the suit will continue and If the application dated 12.10.2009 is 2 rejected then also the suit will continue. However, while rejecting the application 12.10.2009 the application dated 18.12.2009 has also been rejected and the result is that the suit is continuing. In such view of the matter, when the relief claimed by the plaintiff by filing application dated 18.12.2009 has been allowed, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order only because there is some error in the order sheet. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )