Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.

By consent of the parties, we dispose of this appeal finally today at the stage of admission itself.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dt.23.10.2013 by which the relief claimed by the respondent/writ petitioner was allowed. While preferring this appeal, the appellant/Corporation has taken various grounds and one of the grounds is pure question of law based on factual aspect as pleaded before the learned trial Judge.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Judge has missed to decide legal implication of the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had previously on the same cause of action filed a writ petition asking for identical relief, though couched in different language and the same was allowed to be withdrawn, but no permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was prayed for, as such it was not granted. He therefore submits that the subsequent writ petition on which the impugned judgment and order was passed is completely barred by virtue of provision of Order XXII