Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, senior advocate assisted by Sri Kumar Ashish for the petitioner and Sri Mukhtar Alam, counsel for the respondents on the application for withdrawal of the writ petition.
(2.) IT is opposed by Sri Mukhtar Alam, counsel for the respondents on the ground that by an interim order of this Court dated 3.11.2006 rent/compensation has been increased and in order to circumvent the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed this withdrawal application. Sri B.D. Mandhyan submits that revision is already pending against the release order and in the meantime, this Court has passed an interim order on 3.11.2006 by which rent/compensation of the accommodation has been enhanced and an order to reduce multiplicity of proceedings this application for withdrawal has been filed. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following rulings in support of his above submission : 1. R. Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. Sivaraman and others, 1999 (17) LCD 896 : 1999 (2) AWC 1531 (SC) ; 2. K.S. Bhoopathy and others v. Kokila and others, AIR 2000 SC 2132 ; and 3.Mirza Qazim Raza Beg and others v. IVth A.D.J. Allahabad and another, 2006 (3) AWC 3107.
(3.) IN R. Rathinavel Chettiar's case (supra), the Apex Court has considered the question of withdrawal of suit at the appellate stage where the rights which have come to be vested in parties to the suit under the decree cannot be taken away by withdrawal of suit at that stage unless very strong reasons are shown that the withdrawal would not affect or prejudice anybody's vested rights. Similarly in K.S. Bhoopathy's case (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that it is the duty of the Court to feel satisfied about existence of proper grounds/reasons for granting permission for withdrawal of the suit and it has to see that the defendants in suit are not prejudice.;