JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, Member. - These are three connected revision petitions against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Plaintiff came to the court with the allegation that he was sub-tenant of the land in suit and had become Sirdar thereof. The suit was contested by the defendant, who denied that the plaintiff was ever a sub-tenant. Legal pleas of mis-joinder and the suit being barred by Section 80 C.P.C. were also taken. 3. Trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the contract of sub-tenancy. The suit was held to be defective for non-joinder of necessary parties and also for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the dismissed order of the trial court. The Additional Commissioner permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file another suit. This order of the Additional Commissioner has been challenged in the present revision petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the order of the Additional Commissioner is no order in the eye of law. His order is a non-speaking order. The Additional Commissioner under a wrong notion permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with a right to file a fresh one. If there was any defect in the plaint and it was not stipulated at the initial stage, permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh one could not be granted at the appellate stage. It has further been argued that after the rights of the parties had been adjudicated inter se and the plaintiff's suit dismissed on merits, no permission could be accorded for withdrawal of the suit. The learned counsel argued that the orders of the Addl. Commissioner being patently erroneous, the case should be remanded to him for trial on merits. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite party referred to Order XXIII Rule 1, C.P.C. and contended that permission to withdraw the suit could be granted at any stage and that there was nothing in the law which could prevent an appellate court for granting permission to withdraw the suit. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite party referred to Order XXIII Rule 1, C.P.C. and contended that permission to withdraw the suit could be granted at any stage and that there was nothing in the law which could prevent an appellate court for granting permission to withdraw the suit. The learned counsel submitted that no substantive rights were affected by the withdrawal of the suit and as such the order of the Additional Commissioner permitting to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring fresh suit was perfectly correct. 6. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C. contemplates withdrawal of an appeal by the plaintiff, but not the suit except with the leave of the court. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 or Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to appeals and whatever may be the legal position in the trial court and the appellate court, the plaintiff be he an appellant or a respondent cannot be held to possess any absolute right to withdraw the suit. The appellate court can certainly permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit when by such withdrawal no substantive rights of the defendant are adversely affected but if it results in depriving the defendants of some vested or substantive rights the withdrawal of suit may not be permitted. Applying these principles I find that by permitting the withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff the substantive rights of the defendants which have vested in them because of the decree being in their favour, will be affected. The judgment has become binding on the parties and operates as res judicata in subsequent litigation between the parties. The rights of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit at the appellate stage has become final subject to the rights acquired by the defendants under the decree and the ceases to be absolute right to withdraw the suit. Moreover, Additional Commissioner has not given any finding if there was any genuine formal defect in the suit which may justify withdrawal of the suit. In fact, his order is a non-speaking order. As in this case, the substantive rights of the defendant will be adversely affected by granting the permission to withdraw and the further permission to bring a further suit. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In fact, his order is a non-speaking order. As in this case, the substantive rights of the defendant will be adversely affected by granting the permission to withdraw and the further permission to bring a further suit. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. the case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner with the direction that the first appellate court may examine if there is any such formal defect which may call for permission to withdraw the suit keeping in view the position of the law stated above and decide the case on merits according to law. 7. Judgment dictated, signed and pronounced in the open court.