JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by would-be appellants who had been granted leave to intervene in an appeal that has since been dismissed as withdrawn. 2. It will be evident from the order dated September 26, 2018 by which leave was granted to the present applicants to intervene in the appeal that writ petitions had been filed on behalf of the applicants and the principle issue decided by the order under appeal in WA No.78 of 2016 would govern the writ petitions filed by these applicants. 3. As far as WA No.78 of 2016 is concerned, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated October 22, 2021 since the notice challenged by the writ petitioner therein was withdrawn and, as such, the relevant writ petitioner’s cause of action did not survive. 4. However, at the time that WA No.78 of 2016 was permitted to be withdrawn leave was granted to the applicants in MC (WA) No.9 of 2018 to file a fresh writ appeal. The present application for condonation of delay has been filed in connection with an appeal proposed from the same order that was assailed in WA No.78 of 2016. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that since the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016 would govern the decision-making process at the writ court stage, the independent petitions filed by the present applicants may suffer the same fate. 6. It may be observed that the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016 was carried in an appeal. However, the appeal was not decided on merits but was permitted to be withdrawn. In such a scenario, the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016 cannot be said to have been attained complete finality. In such circumstances, it will be open to the applicants to pursue their writ petitions in accordance with law and even if the learned Single Bench finds embarrassment in passing any order different from the order impugned in WA No.78 of 2016, the applicants will have the right to prefer appeals from the individual writ petitions. 7. Accordingly, the present application is considered as superfluous and dismissed with liberty to the applicants to challenge any order that may be passed on the writ petitions filed by them covering the same or similar issues. 8. 7. Accordingly, the present application is considered as superfluous and dismissed with liberty to the applicants to challenge any order that may be passed on the writ petitions filed by them covering the same or similar issues. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Accordingly, WA No.19 of 2021 and MC (WA) No.69 of 2021 are dismissed at the receiving stage.