JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 18.3.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application filed under S.151 CPC, by petitioners-defendants (hereinafter ‘defendants’) for dismissal of the suit being hit by the provisions of Order XXIII CPC, came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter ‘plaintiff’) earlier filed an Original Application i.e. OA No. 1873 of 1998 before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, seeking therein direction to the defendants to promote him as Assistant Professor with effect from 6.3.1976 and as a Professor with effect from 24.10.1980, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. Aforesaid Original Application subsequently came to be transferred to this Court, on account of abolition Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and was registered as CWP (T) No. 5332 of 2008. However, the fact remains that aforesaid petition came to be disposed of as infructuous on the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff, vide order dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure P-7). 3. After passing of order dated 25.6.2010, plaintiff filed a Civil Suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solan (Annexure P-1), seeking therein decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants to promote him to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 6.3.1976 and to the post of Professor with effect from 24.10.1980 on notional basis with all consequential benefits. Defendants filed written statement but never raised the question of maintainability, rather contested the suit on merit. However, after filing of the written statement, defendants filed an application under S.151 CPC (Annexure P-3), for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff being hit by the provisions of Order XXIII CPC. Defendants averred in the application that since the plaintiff had earlier filed CWP(T) No. 5332 of 2008, before this Court seeking same and similar relief, as claimed in the present suit, as such, suit at hand, be dismissed being hit by the provisions of Order XXIII CPC. 4. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.3.2017, dismissed the application. In the aforesaid background, defendants have approached this Court in the present proceedings. 5. 4. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.3.2017, dismissed the application. In the aforesaid background, defendants have approached this Court in the present proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order by the learned Court below, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order, as such, same does not call for any interference. 6. Careful perusal of the provisions contained in Order XXIII CPC reveals that these provisions come into force only when application, if any, is filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of the claim. If a suit is not withdrawn or a part of claim is not abandoned in terms of provisions contained under Order XXIII, opposite party in subsequent suit, if any, can raise objections. Undisputedly, in the case at hand, plaintiff before filing of the civil suit at hand, had approached Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking therein same and similar reliefs as prayed for in the aforesaid suit, but the fact remains that the Original Application as filed in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which ultimately came to be converted into CWP (T), never came to be adjudicated on merits. Civil Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff as referred to herein above, subsequently came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 25.6.2010, on the statement made by learned counsel representing the plaintiff in those proceedings. 7. Question, which needs determination in the present proceedings is that whether, before filing Civil Suit, which is subject matter of present proceedings, plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Writ Court. As has been taken note herein above, petition filed by the plaintiff never came to be adjudicated on merit by the Writ Court, as such there was no necessity for the plaintiff to seek leave of the court for filing appropriate proceedings in the competent Court of law. 8. Leaving everything aside, appropriate remedy for redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff, as raised before Writ Court, was civil suit, as such, suit having been filed by the plaintiff rightly came to be entertained by the civil court. 8. Leaving everything aside, appropriate remedy for redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff, as raised before Writ Court, was civil suit, as such, suit having been filed by the plaintiff rightly came to be entertained by the civil court. Moreover, application filed under S.151 CPC for dismissal of the suit being hit by provisions of Order XXIII CPC, is wholly misconceived, because no such application could be filed by the defendants in the civil suit having been filed by the plaintiff, especially when no civil suit earlier came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking same and similar relief, as prayed for in the subsequent suit. 9. There is another aspect of the matter that no civil suit, prior to filing of civil suit in question, ever came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking same and similar relief. Plaintiff filed Original Application, which ultimately came to be converted into CWP (T) for the redressal of his grievances as such, there was no requirement for him to seek leave of the court in terms of provisions of Order XXIII CPC, before withdrawal of writ petition, which otherwise he being dominus litis could have withdrawn at any stage of the pleadings. 10. Order XXIII CPC is related to withdrawal of suits and as so far question with regard to unconditional withdrawal of a Writ Petition is concerned, it is the sole discretion of the party, which files the same and court has nothing to do with the same. Learned Court below, while passing impugned order has already taken note of the judgments passed by Constitutional courts i.e. Lakshmanan Chetty vs. Muthaya Chetty, 40 Mad. L.J. and Mahant Biharidasji vs. Parshotamdas Ramdas, ILR 32 Bom 345, wherein it has been held that withdrawal in terms of Order XXIII contemplates withdrawal not of suit but from suit, and such a withdrawal may be either with or without liberty to bring a fresh suit. If a party desires to withdraw from the suit with such liberty, then he must apply to the court to permit him so to withdraw but if he does not desire to have that liberty, then he can withdraw of his own and no order of the court is necessary. 11. If a party desires to withdraw from the suit with such liberty, then he must apply to the court to permit him so to withdraw but if he does not desire to have that liberty, then he can withdraw of his own and no order of the court is necessary. 11. Recently, this Court in and Sunder Lal vs. Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation, Law Suit (HP) 1053 held that principle underlying Rule (1) of Order XXIII CPC should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to the cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res-judicata, because it would also discourage litigants indulging in "Bench Hunting" tactic. 12. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has also observed that it often happens that during hearing of a petition, court makes observation orally indicating that it is inclined to dismiss the petition and at that stage, counsel seeks permission to withdraw without getting any verdict on merit, with the intention of filing fresh petition. 13. In the case at hand, as clearly emerges from the record, plaintiff has been running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievances since 1998, when he initially filed Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, but such Original Application subsequently came to be transferred to this Court, on account of abolition of the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that at the time of passing of order dated 25.6.2010, (Annexure P-7), whereby petition having been filed by plaintiff came to be dismissed as infructuous, appropriate remedy for the redressal of grievances of the plaintiff was to file civil suit in competent Court of law, as such, it can be safely presumed that learned counsel representing the plaintiff in writ proceedings, having heard oral observations of the court, proceeded to get the writ petition filed by plaintiff, dismissed as infructuous. Since appropriate remedy for redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff at the time of passing of order dated 25.6.2010, was to file a civil suit, learned court below rightly rejected the application filed by defendants under S.151 CPC, which otherwise in no terms could have been entertained, because provisions of Order XXIII CPC cannot be made applicable qua the proceedings, which admittedly were not initiated in terms of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, rather same were filed under different provisions of law. 14. 14. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is dismissed. Impugned order passed by learned Court below is upheld. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All pending misc. applications are disposed of. 15. Parties undertake to appear before learned Court below on 19.8.2019, enabling it to proceed further with the matter, in accordance with law. Registry to apprise learned Court below with regard to passing of instant order, enabling it to do the needful.