JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - These are two revisions against 2 orders dated October 10, 1972 passed by Sri K.N. Prasad, S.D.O., Auraiya, District Etawah in a suit under Section 229-B/176 of Z.A. and L.R. Act. They have been filed by Raghubar Dayal defendant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under the above sections was filed by Smt. Raksha Kumari daughter of Brij Bahadur Lal against Kripa Shanker, Uma Shanker, Surendra Nath, and Virendradeo defendants 3 to 6 and Raghubar Dayal and Raghubir Sahai sons of Salik Ram defendants Nos. 7 and 8. She wanted a declaration that she was co-tenant of the Land in dispute along with defendants 3 to 8 and that her share was and that share should be partitioned. Defendants Kripa Shanker and Uma Shanker and Raghubir Sahai contested the cases. They were represented by Sarvari Athar Husain and Mazhar Husain, Advocates. Defendant Raghubir Dayal contested that case; he was presented by Sri Sultan Hamid Warsi. They questioned the right of the plaintiff on various grounds; as for instance, that she had not presented any objection during the consolidation operations and the suit was barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, that the plaintiff was not minor during the consolidation operations. 3. The suit proceeded on its usual course. The plaintiff became absent on October 10, 1972 and, therefore, it was dismissed for default at 3 P.M. At that time, i.e., when the suit was dismissed in default, Raghubar Dayal along with his counsel was present. On the same date and immediately after the dismissal order a restoration application was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed on payment of Rs. 10/- as and it has been filed by Reghubar Dayal defendant. 4. It has been urged on behalf of defendant-revisionist that the trial court has committed an illegality in allowing the restoration application inasmuch as a notice as enjoined under Order IX Rule 9(2) was not served on the opportunity, i.e., the defendant-revisionist. This argument is correct. No notice was issued for hearing the restoration application in the name of the defendant-revisionist but in the circumstances of the case this was not necessary. The suit was dismissed in default at 3.00 P.M. and immediately afterwards the plaintiff appeared and filed a restoration application in which she said that she was delayed because the train was late. No notice was issued for hearing the restoration application in the name of the defendant-revisionist but in the circumstances of the case this was not necessary. The suit was dismissed in default at 3.00 P.M. and immediately afterwards the plaintiff appeared and filed a restoration application in which she said that she was delayed because the train was late. As the matter was fresh in the mind of the trial court and the explanation of the plaintiff was overwhelmingly satisfactory, there was no necessity to issue notice to the defendant-revisionists. It was technical formality, the observance of which was uncalled for in the circumstances of the present case. I am, therefore, of the view that restoration application was rightly allowed. Revision No. 70 (Ref. 115) is dismissed. 5. There is another revision No. 69. This has also arisen from the same suit and the revisionist is the same person i.e., Raghubar Dayal defendant. 6. On the same date an application was filed by the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file of fresh suit. This application was allowed by the court on the same date on the payment of a cost of Rs. 25/- to be paid to the opp, parties. The cost was paid to Sri Mazhar Husain, Advocate on behalf of Kripa Shanker and others. He was not an Advocate of the defendant-revisionist. So revision No. 69 has been directed against this order. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the withdrawal application of the plaintiff does not contain the defects on account of which she wants to withdraw the plaint; and secondly, that the learned trial court has not given reasons on account of which the permitted withdrawal of the plaint with permission to file afresh suit. These arguments are correct. The withdrawal application does not mention the legal defects on account of which the suit should be withdrawn and at the same time the order of the learned trial court does not given reasons of sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh suit. This is in violation of Order 23, Rule 1. It has been held in A.I.R. 1954 Alld. 18 that such an order is an order without jurisdiction and must be set aside. This is in violation of Order 23, Rule 1. It has been held in A.I.R. 1954 Alld. 18 that such an order is an order without jurisdiction and must be set aside. Similar view has been taken by the Board of Revenue in 1948 R.D. 364 where in it has been stated that an order under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 29, C.P.C., cannot be upheld unless it is supported by the reasons which led the court to pass such an order. I also find that the defendants were not given sufficient opportunity to oppose the withdrawal application. 7. It has been urged on behalf of plaintiff-opp. party that as this was a case under Section 176 of Z.A. and L.R. Act in which there is a recurring cause of action, therefore, it was not necessary on her part to mention the defects on account of which she wanted to withdraw the suit. It has also been urged that for the same reason, it was not necessary for the learned trial court to given reasons for allowing the withdrawal application. This argument is true in a partition case, but the present case is not only a partition case, but a case for declaration of plaintiff's co-tenancy rights and determination of her share. The fact that this is a declaratory suit as well does not permit me to accept this argument. 8. In view of the above, revision No. 69 (Ref. No. 114) is allowed. The result would be that the order of the learned trial court dated October 10, 1972 by which it had granted the withdrawal application is set aside. He will pass a fresh order after giving opportunities to the plaintiff and the defendants to put their case with regard to the withdrawal application. 9. This order will govern Ref. Nos. 114 and 115 of 1974-75 distt. Etawah.