1. Petitioner-Mohammad Ismail Nazar has filed this Petition seeking quashing of Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department Srinagar's Order dated 08.09.2001, whereby he was held disentitled to regularization in Government Service, besides a direction to the State-respondents to regularize his services against the post of Helper in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, allowing him benefits which had been allowed by the State to similarly situated persons working at Noorabad Canal of Kulgam Division. 2. The State-respondents have contested the petitioner's Writ Petition, inter alia, on the ground that Issues raised by the petitioner in the petition cannot be made subject matter of fresh litigation, in that, the petition was hit by the principle of res judicata. 3. Producing a certified copy of Subordinate Judge, Kulgam's Order dated 22.04.2010, in terms whereof, the petitioner's Suit being Suit No. 125 of 2010, was dismissed as withdrawn, which has been taken on records, it was not disputed by the petitioner's learned counsel that the dispute raised in this petition is same as projected in the Suit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submis­sions. 5. The question that thus arises for determination in the case is as to whether a litigant can withdraw from litigation at any stage to commence the proceedings afresh? 6. Going by the principle underlying the provisions of Ord er 23 Rule 1 Sub-rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Svt. 1977, Withdrawal Simpliciter carries the same effect as that of the dismissal of lis. However, withdrawal with permission of the Court to commence the proceedings afresh, would not operate as dismissal of the lis: 7. The principle underlying the provisions of Order 23 of the Code is based on Public Policy that litigation once commenced must attain finality. Leaving the litigation halfway to commence it again at suitor's sweet will, may thus neither be in the public interest nor would it serve the interests of justice. 8. It is, therefore, held that Withdrawal Simpliciter would debar the litigant from commencing the proceedings again. 9. Thus, having withdrawn the Suit, without permission of the Court to commence proceedings by a fresh Suit, the petitioner stands debarred from re-agi­tating his cause in view of the principles underlying the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 Sub-rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. 9. Thus, having withdrawn the Suit, without permission of the Court to commence proceedings by a fresh Suit, the petitioner stands debarred from re-agi­tating his cause in view of the principles underlying the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 Sub-rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In this view of the matter having been debarred by law, to re-agitate his cause by a fresh Suit, the petitioner cannot be permitted to project his claim invoking the Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdiction of the Court on the principle of Judicial Comity/Amity, particularly when no reasons have been spelt out by the petitioner necessitating the withdrawal of the Suit to invoke the Extra Ordinary Writ Jurisdic­tion of the Court. 11. Thus, found to be utterly misconceived, the petitioner's Writ Petition is dismissed.