JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 21st January, 2000, passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 250/1999, allowing the respondent to withdraw the suit. The challenge is mainly three folds, firstly, that the withdrawal of the suit has been allowed ignoring the advantage gained by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings in relation to the subject matter of the suit by virtue of the order of the Court; secondly, by ignoring the fact that there was already a finding arrived at by the same Court regarding the possession of suit premises with the petitioners and the same was in favour of the petitioners and the matter regarding adjudication of the said finding was pending at the Appellate Court; and thirdly, on the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking order.

3. The facts, relevant for the decision are that the premises in question undisputedly belong to M/s. Mahadkar Construction Private Limited. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allowed to run business therein and consequently had established restaurant which was allowed to be cond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document