JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is revision against the order dated February 12, 1975 padded by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, rejecting the application for withdrawal of the original suit in a case under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionist, Mohammad Shafi had filed a suit for division of a holding claiming share in the holing the trial court by its order dated September 30, 1966, decreed the suit only for th. Thereafter he filed a first appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division on October 31, 1966. During the pendency of the first appeal, he moved an application for amendment of May 30, 1973. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner on august 8, 1973. Thereafter he moved another application on February 1, 1975, for permission to withdraw the appeal as well as the original suit. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order date February 12, 1975 rejected this application. Mohammad Shafi has now come upon in revision before this Court. 4. The only point for consideration in this revision is, whether the lower appellate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction in an illegal manner be refusing the permission to withdraw the suit. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Afzal Begam v. Akbari Kahnam and others A.L.J. 1915, 444, in which the following observations have been made: "Under the provisions of Order 23, rule I, an appellant court can give a plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the court of first instance, permission to withdraw his suit with leave to institute a fresh one. Ganga Ram v. Data Ram I.L.R., 8 All., 82, followed. Charagudi v. Raja Barada 27 M.L.J., 244, Eknath v. Ranoji I.L.R., 35 Bom., 261, not followed. In a suit for partition the plaintiff failed to implead some necessary parties. An objection as to non-joined was taken by the defendants in the court first instance but escaped the notice of the Subordinate judge who partly decreed the suit. Both sides and the same objection was again taken. Plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one stating that she had forgotten to implead certain necessary parties. The Judge allowed her to withdraw giving her the necessary permission. Both sides and the same objection was again taken. Plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one stating that she had forgotten to implead certain necessary parties. The Judge allowed her to withdraw giving her the necessary permission. Held that the judge had jurisdiction to pass the order and the High Court could not interfere in revision." 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to Kedar Nath and others v. Chandra Kiran and others A.I.R. 1963 Allahabad 262, in which N.U. Beg J., has observed as follows: "Having considered the matter, I am of opinion that O. 23, r. 1, sub-rule(1) does not give an absolute right to the plaintiffs appellant to withdraw the suit at his stage. The matter lies within the discretion of the court. The case has now reached the stage of second appeal, and unless of the plaintiffs are able to make out some good ground for giving them permission or withdraw, the said permission should not be accorded. No such ground is given by the plaintiffs is their application. In fact the ground put forward on their behalf before me is that the finding given by the lower court against the plaintiff-appellants in the present case may operate as res judicata in a second suit filed by them. I am of opinion that this is the very ground for not granting them the permission asked for. I accordingly dismiss this application." 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has further referred to Bhukhal Dude v. Smt. Sahabzadi R.D. 1970, 411, in which a learned Member of this Court has observed a follows: "The Hon'ble High Court has not approved of withdrawal at the appellate stage where the decree has been passed against the plaintiff and he is the appellant. In the instant case the plaintiff had won the suit in the trail court as well as the lower appellate court. In the board, she as also in the lower appellate court she was a plaintiff-appellant. Thus her right to withdraw the suit at the stage of second appeal was not fettered and she could withdraw it, even if some parties had opposed it". 7. In the board, she as also in the lower appellate court she was a plaintiff-appellant. Thus her right to withdraw the suit at the stage of second appeal was not fettered and she could withdraw it, even if some parties had opposed it". 7. Order XXIII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim-(1) At any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, withdraw his suit or abandon part of this claim. (2) Where the court is satisfied. (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect;or (b) that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or abandon such part of a claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or part of a claim." A perusal of this rule makes it clear that a Court is not bound to grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw a suit and subsequently file a fresh suit, but it is within its discretion to grand such permission if it is satisfied. Before the trail court normally the Court should have no difficulty in granting such a permission. However, after a case has already been adjudicated upon by the trial court, the lower appellate court has got to be very cautious in granting such a permission. Further under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court has a discretion either to grant permission or to withhold such permission. In cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or exercised such jurisdiction with an illegality or material irregularity where it has refused to give such permission. No interference against such an order to the lower appellate court is, therefore, called for in a revision. 8. There is no force in this revision which is hereby dismissed.