ORDER : VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J. This petition is filed seeking the following relief: "Quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.11, filed under order XXIII Rule 1 read with section 151 of code of civil procedure by the 1 st respondent in O.S.No.10/2019 which is disposed as withdrawn on The file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Bangalore rural District at Bangalore vide Annexure-E." 2. Sri.Anjaneya A.B., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.10/2019 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Trial Court' ) against him and others as many as 125 defendants seeking various prayers including that the sale deed of the petitioner dated 01.02.2006 executed by Smt.Gowri in favour of the petitioner is not binding on respondent No.1-plaintiff. Later, respondent No.1 filed an application seeking withdrawal of the said suit on the ground that certain formal technical defects have been inadvertently crept in the suit and the said application is mechanically considered by the trial Court and allowed the respondent No.1-plaintiff to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. It is submitted that after withdrawal of the said suit, respondent No.1, filed O.S.No.125/2020 without making the petitioner as a party and without seeking the relief sought in the earlier suit. It is submitted that the attempt of respondent No.1 is to get a collusive decree against the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Mohan Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff supports the order of the trial Court and submits that there were certain formal defects which are pointed out at the time of argument and the trial Court considered the same and allowed the respondent No.1 to withdraw the suit with the liberty to file a fresh suit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. 5. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.10/2019 against the petitioner herein, who was the defendant No.12, and others. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. 5. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.10/2019 against the petitioner herein, who was the defendant No.12, and others. The suit was filed mainly for seeking the relief of declaration that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule A, B & C properties and direct the defendants to put the respondent No.1 in the vacant physical possession of the same and further to declare that the General Power of Attorney executed by late S.K.Mariyappa & his wife & son in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 9 therein are fraudulent, fictitious, void documents and not enforceable in the eye of law and consequently declare the sale deeds referred in the prayer are not binding on respondent No.1; one of the sale deeds is of the petitioner's, which is dated 01.02.2006. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the respondent No.1 to withdraw the suit with the liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action on the same subject matter. 6. Admittedly, in the application seeking withdrawal of the suit, a vague assertion is made that there are certain formal technical defects that inadvertently crept in the suit, hence, they are required to be corrected and fresh suit is required to filed. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that he can now point out the defects in the suit. Be that as it may. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.125/2020 and O.S.No.126/2020 seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the said suit on the basis of the fake and forged General Power of Attorney as null and void and not binding on the respondent No.1-plaintiff and for permanent injunction. Admittedly, in both the suits, the petitioner has not been arraigned as a party and the relief sought against the petitioner in O.S.No.10/2019 is given up by respondent No.1. Admittedly, in both the suits, the petitioner has not been arraigned as a party and the relief sought against the petitioner in O.S.No.10/2019 is given up by respondent No.1. That being so, I am of the considered view that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, at this stage, by the order of the trial Court granting liberty to the respondent No.1 to file fresh suit, as in the suits filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.Nos.125/2020 and 126/2020, the petitioner is not made as a party and no relief is sought against him. 7. This Court has also taken note of the fact that in the earlier suit filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.10/2019 schedule 'D' property consists of various items, one of the items is the property claimed to be purchased by the petitioner, which is not the subject matter of the suits in O.S.No.125/2020 & 126/2020. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court calling for interference in this petition filed by the present petitioner, who was defendant No.12 in the suit. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.