1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Despite service, respondent No. 1 remained absent. It appears that writ petition is dismissed as against respondents No. 2 and 3 for want of steps. The matter is pending since 2013, therefore, I prefer to determine the issue involved in the petition on merits.

2. The petitioner - defendant No. 2 assails orders dated 20-10-2012 below Exhibits- 99 and 1, in Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, District Latur, whereunder present respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

3. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 1 – Yusuf Faijusab Sayyed initiated civil litigation bearing Regular civil Suit No. 26 of 2005 for the relief of declaration and injunction against petitioner and others in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, District Latur. Agricultural lands bearing Gut Nos. 181 and 205 located at village Dapkyal, tahsil Chakur were the subject-matter of the suit. After receipt of suit summons, the petitioner and other defendants appeared in the proceedings and resisted the claim by filing written statement. Defendants averred in written statement that portions of land Gut No. 205 admeasuring 1 hectare, 08 Aar and Gut No. 181 admeasuring 00 hectare, 92 Aar were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of storage tank of village Dapkyal, tahsil Chakur. Pending proceedings, original plaintiff i.e. respondent No. 1 -Yusuf Faijusab Sayyed, preferred application Exhibit-99 and requested to allow him to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Latur. Learned trial court kept application awaiting for reply on behalf of defendants, but nobody turn up to the court and ultimately circumstances compelled learned trial court to allow respondent No. 1 - plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The impugned order passed by learned trial court dated 20-10-2012 is put in controversy in the present proceedings on behalf of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order passed by learned trial court is erroneous, illegal and not sustainable within purview of law. The learned trial court did not pass order after hearing the petitioner. There were no formal defects in the proceedings. The reasons mentioned in the petition are false and baseless and not considerable at all. The original plaintiff - Yusuf Faijusab Sayyed is one of the party to the proceeding of Land Acquisition Reference No. 90 of 2007. He has also filed first appeal in the proceedings. Therefore, he cannot claims ignorance of the acquisition of the contentious suit land. The petitioner added that after framing requisite issues, plaintiff adduced his evidence before the learned trial court. The defendants also filed affidavit by way of evidence. But, there was no cross-examination to the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff. Eventually, learned trial court passed order of “No-cross” and forfeited the right of plaintiff to cross-examine the petitioner in the proceeding. The plaintiff made endeavour to get set-aside the order of “no-cross” but, learned trial court did not respond to the request of plaintiff - Yusuf Sayyed and rejected the application. Thereafter, plaintiff played mischief and preferred present application Exhibit-99 for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on same cause of action. The permission to withdraw the suit by the plaintiff is at belated stage, and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, petitioner rushed to this court by invoking remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and filed the present petition to redress her grievances.

5. I gave anxious consideration to the argu