UJWALA PAWAR Vs. HARISH V.MILANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.V. Anturkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. sandip Babar, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 2 at length.

(2.) By this Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2013 below Exhibit 11 in Misc. judicial Case No. 347 of 2013 in Regular Civil Suit No. 881 of 2011. The learned trial Judge has passed the following order :

(3.) In support of this petition, Mr. Anturkar submitted that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. On merits, he submitted that once respondent No. 1 had filed application Exhibit-11 on 22-8-2013, the said application stands allowed and there is no necessity of passing a formal order permitting respondent No. 1 to withdraw the application thereby deleting the name of the petitioner as opponent No. 1. He submitted that in the present case, it cannot be said that in pursuance of the application made by the first respondent, after holding preliminary inquiry the learned trial Judge has directed Registry to lodge a complaint against the accused persons. The learned trial Judge directed other side to file say. As the application is not acted upon by issuing appropriate directions for lodging complaint against the petitioner, once the application Exhibit-11 was made by respondent No. 1 for deleting the name of the petitioner as opponent No. 1, the said application stands allowed without any formal order of the Court disposing of such application as withdrawal. The application for withdrawal is not dependent on order of the Court. In support of this proposition, Mr. Anturkar relied upon following decisions :