1. The only point open to the appellant is that because the claim petition which the respondent presented in 1914 was marked by the District Munsiff as ' not pressed ; dismissed ' and because no suit was consequently brought under the procedure laid down by the Code, the present suit is incompetent. The learned Judge has taken a broad view of the matter and has disposed of the case by ascertaining what really happened at the time. What took place was that the claimant wished to abandon his claim and to have it treated as if it never had been made. The only' argument suggested against that is that where a litigant abandons his claim and withdraws it as if it never had been made and the Judge by endorsement on the papers dismissed it, the litigant is precluded from taking the other course of bringing a suit. This argument appears to be, to say the least, highly technical and in our opinion it would be pernicious not to allow a litigant who has taken what ha is satisfied is a mistaken stop to correct that step before anything is done which could enure to the prejudice of the other side. In this case there is nothing of the kind. There was no question of default. It has always been my opinion that in the case of the withdrawal of a portion, it is a mistake of the Judge to endorse on it'' dismissed' and that it is quite sufficient to record on it ' withdrawn.' That is the proper endorsement that ought to have been made in this casa. The appeal is dismissed with costs.