JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally with the consent of Mr. S.A. Marathe, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.T. Harkare, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. 2. The appellants herein (Original plaintiffs) had instituted Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2007 in which the applications were filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 under Order VII, Rule 11d r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that, on the earlier occasion, same plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006, in which the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration that the Sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant is illegal, null and void. In those suits, the plaintiffs preferred an application (Exh.38) in order to seek withdrawal of the suits with permission to file fresh suit due to some formal defects in the suit. The trial Court, with whom the Special Civil Suit Nos.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006 were instituted, was pleased to grant conditional permission to withdraw those suits with liberty to file fresh suit subject to payment of cost in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, payable within one month from the date of bill of costs. Thus, there was a conditional order passed by the trial Court which laid down a condition precedent for the present appellants (original plaintiffs) to institute a fresh suit subject to payment of cost. 3. This appeal has been opposed by the respondents on the ground that there was concurrent judgment against the appellants whereby the plaint was rejected by the concurrent findings when the Courts below found that cost which was made condition precedent for institution of fresh suit was not paid by the appellants within time and therefore, the appellants could not institute fresh suit without compliance of condition precedent as to payment of cost. 4. I have perused the order passed by the trial Court – Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Pusad, dt. 11.10.2010 whereby the plaint was rejected on the ground that, admittedly, by application (Exh.38) filed in respect of earlier Special Civil Suit Nos.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006, an application was made to withdraw those suits with permission to file fresh suit to avoid formal defect. 11.10.2010 whereby the plaint was rejected on the ground that, admittedly, by application (Exh.38) filed in respect of earlier Special Civil Suit Nos.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006, an application was made to withdraw those suits with permission to file fresh suit to avoid formal defect. The conditional permission was granted dependent upon payment of cost in the sum of Rs.15,000/- as condition precedent to institute fresh suit. It is not disputed that the condition precedent for payment of cost for institution of fresh suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2007 was not complied with by the appellant. Thus, the trial Judge, who found that payment of cost was a condition precedent to be complied with within one month from the date of bill of costs and the appellants (plaintiffs) had failed to comply with the said order, naturally the plaintiffs could not have instituted fresh suit in utter disregard of the conditional permission granted in favour of the plaintiffs in view of O.XXIII, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs thus : 1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim- 1 .......... 2 .......... 3. Where the court is satisfied,- (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. (4) Where the plaintiff- (a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule(3), he shall be liable for such costs as the court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.” 5. In my opinion, withdrawal of the suit, that too in the absence of consent by the opposite party is not a matter of course and not permissible. In my opinion, withdrawal of the suit, that too in the absence of consent by the opposite party is not a matter of course and not permissible. It is authority of the Court which may be used for to exercise judicial discretion which may conditionally permit plaintiff to withdraw from the earlier suit with permission to file fresh suit subject to terms as to cost as may be laid down by the Court for institution of fresh suit. The learned Counsel for the appellants now contended that independent cause of action was also incorporated in a freshly instituted suit, therefore, payment of cost ought not to have been made a condition precedent by the Court to allow withdrawal of the suit. This argument is not acceptable, particularly when, admittedly, payment of cost within a specific period i.e. 15 days from the date of bill of costs was made essential condition to institute fresh suit. The rules quoted above are clear in the sense that the plaintiffs are prevented from institution of any fresh suit without abiding his liability to pay cost awarded by the Court as a condition precedent for institution of the fresh suit. Learned first Appellate Judge also recorded concurrent findings in this regard making reference to judicial precedents, particularly to the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2011 (8) SCC 161 , which, in terms, indicate that the litigant cannot unduly enrich themselves or make any undeserved gain while invoking jurisdiction of the Court. Nonpayment of cost awarded by the Court in this case and deliberate noncompliance of condition precedent for filing fresh suit was inexcusable grave mistake which plaintiff committed. The party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge-I, Pusad by the impugned Judgment and Order dt.18.12.2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No.38 of 2012 with compensatory costs in the sum of Rs.15,000/- payable to each of the respondents. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants, at this stage, wants to refer to the ruling in the case of Konkan Trading Company vs. Suresh Govind Kamat Tarkar and Others reported in 1986 Mh.L.H. 512. The Supreme Court had observed with reference to order in that case that cost in the sum of Rs.100/was to be deposited as a condition precedent before institution of the next suit. The Supreme Court had observed with reference to order in that case that cost in the sum of Rs.100/was to be deposited as a condition precedent before institution of the next suit. With reference to the order passed, the Apex Court construed that order as grant of application for withdrawal of suit with liability for the plaintiff to pay the sum of Rs.100/by way of cost. In the facts and circumstances of that case, it was observed that the order permitting withdrawal of suit cannot, in the circumstances, be construed as imposing a condition precedent for filing of the fresh suit and that there is no warrant for taking a hypo-technical rigid view which results in denying to a person access to justice and deprives him of his legal rights more so when it is possible to take a liberal view which promotes the ends of justice. 7. Looking to these observations made by the Apex Court, in the case in hand, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is forever precluded from filing of fresh suit on the stated cause of action because Order VII, Rule 13 makes it clear that even if plaint is rejected on any of the grounds mentioned in Order VII, that by its own force would not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of same cause of action. At the same time, I must express opinion that the litigant must bear in mind that the order passed by the Court must be respected; obeyed punctually and no disrespect can be shown to the judicial orders passed by the Court, particularly in this case when the trial Court has granted conditional permission to withdraw the suit to avert formal defect enabling the plaintiff to file fresh suit subject to payment of cost in the sum of Rs.15,000/- as a condition precedent. The order, in my opinion, ought to have been faithfully obeyed. The plaintiff ought to have complied with the conditional permission as granted. 8. Thus, the facts in the present case in respect of concurrent findings of facts as recorded are distinguishable upon reading the ruling cited before me by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Of course, the Apex Court has made observations in larger interest of justice so that the cost awarded may be paid subsequently when the fresh suit is filed. Thus, the facts in the present case in respect of concurrent findings of facts as recorded are distinguishable upon reading the ruling cited before me by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Of course, the Apex Court has made observations in larger interest of justice so that the cost awarded may be paid subsequently when the fresh suit is filed. I have already observed that it is open for the plaintiffs to avail of the concession under Order VII, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to file fresh suit and no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiffs even if the present Second Appeal is dismissed. This Court has to bear in mind that the right of filing second appeal is neither natural nor inherent right. It is substantive right exercisable in accordance with law on the basis that there exist a substantial question of law which can be formulated and decided. Looking into the controversy here when question appears finally settled by general principles stated in law itself, there would be no warrant for interference in exercise of powers in Second Appeal when the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings in respect of pure questions of facts which were crystal clear. I do not find substantial question of law to entertain prayer made to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order. In view of the reasons stated hereinabove, therefore, when under Order VII, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiffs are not precluded from filing fresh suit (despite dismissal of this Second Appeal), considering the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below concurrently there is no reason for to warrant any interference in exercise of powers in Second Appeal in absence of any substantial question of law, I must dismiss this Second Appeal. In the result, the present Second Appeal is dismissed with cost.