The Court has the jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of an application for withdrawal of a suit in exercise of its inherent power under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the order No. 18 dated March 25, 1985 of the Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for withdrawal of the application for withdrawal of the suit.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that pursuant to invitation of tenders issued by the State Government for the completion of unfinished work in the Sugar-cane Research Station Building at Bamandanga, P. S. Nakashipara and the Sub-Divisional Health Centre at Fakirdanga, under P. S. Nabadwip, both in the district of Nadia, the petitioner submitted his tender which was accepted by the authority concerned who issued the necessary work order for the said job. The petitioner took up the said job and completed the same within the stipulated time. The tender that was invited by the State Government did not contain anything regarding any construction on the ground floor of the said Research Station Building at Bamandanga.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that during the progress of the above construction work, the State Government further directed the petitioner to undertake completion of the ground floor of the said building at Bamandanga, although the said work was not included in the above tender. Because of his cordial relation with the concerned department, the petitioner agreed to carry out the said job and duly completed the same within the stipulated time as mentioned in the letter dated January 7, 1976 of the Executive Engineer, Krishnagar. The petitioner had to incur a cost of Rs. 4,51,000/- for the execution of the non-tender item of work. It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the State Government did not pay to the petitioner any part of the said amount.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 115 of 1979 for the realisation of his dues for the jobs performed by the petitioner as per the tender submitted by him. The dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitration. The Arbitrator made an award in favour of the petitioner and the suit was disposed of by a judgment and decree on the basis of the said award. The State Government had preferred an appeal being F. M. A. T. No. 17 of 1973 in this Court which is still pending.

( 5 ) THE Money Suit No. 10 of 1984 out of which the present application under S. 115 arises has been filed by the petitioner for the realisation of his claim for the works executed by him for the completion of the ground floor of the building at Bamandanga not covered by the tender. The petitioner has paid on the plaint of the said suit the maximum court-fee of Rs. 10,000/ -.

( 6 ) IT is alleged that the learned Assistant District Judge took the view that the dispute between the parties should also be referred to arbitration and fixed March 20, 1985 for the purpose. As the petitioner was not willing to go to arbitration, he filed an application under O. 23, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the withdrawal of the suit without considering the prejudice that would be suffered by him. In the said application, he did not pray for leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. On March 20, 1985, the learned Assistant District Judge passed an order dismissing the suit for non-prosecution on the said application of the petitioner under O. 23, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 7 ) IT is alleged that thereafter the petitioner came back to his senses and realised that he had done a great blunder. Accordingly, he filed an application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on March 22,1985 praying for withdrawal of the said application for withdrawal of the suit after setting aside the order dated March 20, 1985.

( 8 ) THE learned Assistant District Judge, however, by the impugned order No. 18 dated March 25, 1985