secondly, the petitioner concerned intends to prefer another proceeding under another Act, may be on the same subject matter, and for the purpose liberty is sought for allowing such petitioner to approach the Court again, it cannot be construed that the order allowing the withdrawal was passed without giving any liberty to approach the Court further, unless the liberty sought for is specifically rejected while allowing the withdrawal of the petition. Under the law, it has to be construed that any order allowing a withdrawal on an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC had been allowed on the terms as may be stated in the application for withdrawal and non-mentioning of the liberty granted to approach again would not mean that liberty stood rejected. In this respect, we take note of the principles of law of constructive res-judicata, that all such pleas taken, or which ought to have been taken, in the earlier application, is deemed under the law to have been taken note of as well as decided in the earlier application itself. As the claim for liberty to be granted had been specifically taken it also has to be understood that the said liberty sought for has also been decided by the order dated 07.03.2018 by which the withdrawal was allowed and in the absence of any specific rejection, in the instant case, it has to be understood that by implication liberty was granted.
