JUDGMENT : This revisional application is at the instance of the defendant nos. 2 and 4 in Title Suit No. 54 of 2011 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat. In the revisional application the petitioners have challenged the order dated January 19, 2015 passed by the learned Court below dismissing their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for acceptance of the written statement on the ground that by an earlier order dated November 24, 2014 the learned Court below refused to accept their written statement and in the subsequent application the petitioners could not mention any change in circumstances under which the subsequent prayer for acceptance of their written statement by modifying the order dated November 24, 2014 could be reconsidered. Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners submitted that even after November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs-opposite parties amended their plaint filed in the suit before the learned Court below and added more defendants and as such the plaintiffs-opposite parties would not suffer any prejudice if the prayer of the defendant nos. 2 and 4petitioners for acceptance of their written statement would have been allowed by the learned Court below. However, from the copy of the application filed by the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as has been annexed to this application, it does not appear that the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners had urged the said subsequent event of amendment of the plaint filed in the said suit before the learned Court below. Thus, Mr. Chowdhury accepted that the finding of the learned Court below in the impugned order that the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners have not mentioned any change in the circumstances of the case after passing of the said order dated November 24, 2014 cannot be faulted. He fairly submitted that the petitioners would like to withdraw this application and file an appropriate application before the learned Court below to point out the events which have taken place in the title suit after passing of the order dated November 24, 2014. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case leave is granted to the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners to withdraw this application. It is made clear that this order shall not prevent the defendant nos. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case leave is granted to the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners to withdraw this application. It is made clear that this order shall not prevent the defendant nos. 2 and 4-petitioners to file a fresh application praying for, acceptance of the written statement in view of the events which have taken place after November 24, 2014, if any, and subject to maintainability of such application. Although, Mr. Chattopadhyay led by Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs-opposite parties raised an objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners to withdraw this application but in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept such objection. With the above directions CO No.3448 of 2015 stands dismissed as not pressed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.