ORDER Mootham, J. - Jadu Nandan Singh and three others filed an application against the present applicants in the Court of the Revenue Officer of Ghazipur under S. 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1935. The application was dismissed and an appeal against the order dismissing the application was filed in the Court of the District Judge of Ghazipur. In the course of the hearing of the appeal the appellants filed an application under O. 23, R. 1, Civil P.C., asking for permission to withdraw from the suit on the ground that the latter must fail, by reason of a formal defect. This application was allowed, and it is against the order of the learned District Judge, dated 12-9-1944, allowing the suit to be withdrawn, that this application in revision under S. 115, Civil P.C., has been filed. The ground on which it is urged that it is proper for this Court to interfere is that the learned District Judge acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as he, in disposing of the application, failed to state the reasons which in his opinion justified the appellants' withdrawal from the suit. 2. The order of the lower Appellate Court was very brief, and is in the following terms: Plaintiff appellant is allowed to withdraw from the suit with permission to bring a fresh suit because the suit is likely to fail for a formal defect. Defendants respondents who do not oppose this application shall get their full costs of both the Courts. 3. I was referred by the present applicants to several decisions of this Court the most recent of which appears to be Kamta Singh Vs. Bhagwan Das and Others, AIR 1928 All 98 in which it was said that the failure of a Court to state the reasons for which it permitted a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit constituted a material irregularity. But it will be found, I think, on closer examination, that the basis of the decision in these cases was the failure of the lower Court to exercise the discretion vested in it under O. 23, R. 1, in a judicial manner, of which the absence of a statement of the grounds upon which the Court was satisfied that permission to withdraw from the suit (sic should be granted) was evidence. 4. 4. Now can it be said that in the present case the learned District Judge failed to exercise his discretion in a judicial manner? I think not. The present applicants were represented in Court when the application under O. 23, R. 1 came before the learned Judge; and they did not oppose that application. In effect they tacitly consented to the application so long as they obtained their costs in both Courts. 5. The effect of an order in very similar terms to that made by the lower Appellate Court in the present case was considered by Allsop J. in Ragho Sewak Rai Vs. Bhola Singh and Others, AIR 1938 All 450 In that case the learned Judge expressed the view that it was unnecessary for a Court to go into the question whether a formal defect or other sufficient cause existed to justify the withdrawal of the suit when the parties were essentially in agreement. That, in my view, was the position in the present case, and I do not think, therefore, that the learned District Judge in making the order which he did make acted with material irregularity. In any event I should not, on general grounds, ordinarily be disposed to exercise my discretionary powers under S. 115, Civil P.C., for the purpose of setting aside an order of a lower Court which was made with the consent, express or tacit, of the person who now seeks to have that order vacated. This application must be rejected.