1.This writ appeal Is directed against the orders dt. 23-8-2000 in W.P. No.10256/1990 passed by the learned single Judge, in passing whereof, the learned single Judge in entertaining a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach this Court yet again on the very same cause of action, passed an order granting permission to the appellant writ petitioner to withdraw the petition and rejected the prayer for granting liberty as prayed for as above.

2. The appellant writ petitioner herein is represented by the learned counsel Sri K.S. Desai, whereas the respondents Nos.1 to 3 are represented by the learned counsel Sri Ashok Harnahalli and respondents Nos.4 and 5 are represented by Sri N.K. Gupta.

3. The short point involved in the instant writ appeal is whether the learned single Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for granting liberty to file fresh petition on the very same cause of action, upon which the original writ petition in question came to be filed, while granting permission to withdraw the writ petition.

4. Before proceeding further, we feel it appropriate to narrate here the contents of the memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner, and to do that, the same reads as hereunder :
"MEMO
In the above matter, the petitioner respectfully submits that having regard to the subsequent events it is not necessary for the petitioner to seek further relief at the hands of this Hon'ble Court at this Juncture. The petitioner seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the petition reserving liberty to approach this Hon'ble Court if necessary at a later stage if there is any subsequent developments and order passed.
Bangalore
Dt. Advocate for petitioner."

5. The learned senior counsel Sri H.B. Datar appearing for the learned counsel Sri K.S. Desai on record for the appellant, submitted that the learned single Judge would not have passed the impugned order as above, for, according to him, it was not available for him to split the prayer as made out in the memo by allowing the request to withdraw the writ petition while refusing liberty to file fresh writ petition on the very same cause of action.

6. In support of his argument, the learned senior counsel had placed reliance on the reported decision of this Court reported in 1974(2) Kant LJ 164 In the case of Bhutha v. Baburao. He had also cited yet another decision reported in AIR 1989 Him Pra 43 in the case of Hans Raj Akrot v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

7. While taking us through the said two decisions, which we have adverted to here below, it was pointed out by the learned senior counsel that it was totally impermissible in law for the learned single Judge to grant one part of the prayer while rejecting the other. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge be set aside by granting both the prayers as made out in the memo and the same be allowed In its entirety. According to him, the same go together.

8. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced in the light of the decisions cited. Before proceeding further, we feel it appropriate to quote the material part of O.23, R.1 of C.P.C. and the same reads as hereunder:
"1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. - (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim:
Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in Rr.1 to 14 of O.32 extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court.
(2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also. If the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person.
(3) Where the Court is sa