JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - These two revision petitions arise out of the suit u/s 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in which by the order of the learned trial Court dated 4.8.1981 Smt. Awadhraji was impleaded as plaintiff. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The two suits in the trial court-one by Har Prasad and the other by Shauker, were consolidates and so two appeals against the impugned order dated 4.8.1981 were hied before the learned first appellate court and both were dismissed by the order dated 7.9.1982. This gave rise to the present revision petitions. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant-defendant has argued that the order dated 4.8.1981 was without jurisdiction as the suit was not pending in view of the application for withdrawal dated 21.2.1981 by the plaintiff liar Prasad, that in view of the ruling re ported in AIR 1966 Alld. 318 by Division Bench a suit must be deemed withdrawn under Order XXII Rule I.C.P.C. after presentation of the application even though no order was passed, in this ruling the plaintiff was not allowed to further contest while Smt. Awadhraji was not even a party, he further cited the ruling reported in AIR 1968 SC 112 in support of this contention that the plaintiff can withdraw before a decree passed which is his unqualified right, and that the order allowing the application by Awadhraji dated 26.3.1981 was, therefore, without jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel Sri P.N. Misra appearing for Shanker has argued that the case Shanker v. Kalapnath was being unnecessarily delayed just because the two suits were consolidated and he only wanted the matter to be decided early. 5. The learned counsel Sri P.N. Misra appearing for Shanker has argued that the case Shanker v. Kalapnath was being unnecessarily delayed just because the two suits were consolidated and he only wanted the matter to be decided early. The Darned counsel, for the opposite party Smt. Awadhraji, Sri S.D. Pathak has argued that there was already an application dated 3.2.1981 by Smt. Awadhraji for being impleaded as defendant, much before the application for withdrawal was presented and so further application dated 26.3.1981 under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC/Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be considered in isolation of the earlier application that no doubt by order dated 4.8.81 the latter application had been allowed but both the applications dated 3.2.1981 and 26.3.1981 were connected and related to the same subject, that the interest of the plaintiff after selling ceases and so his application for withdrawal was without any right, that the learned trial court exercised jurisdiction correctly and properly under Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C., that there could not be any order of withdrawal without order on the application for impleadment filed earlier and so in these special circumstances, the two rulings cited do not apply, that the pendency of the suit could not be terminated in view of the application for impleadment already there since 3.2.1981 and that it was also necessary to see if the application for withdrawal itself was maintainable or not. 6. No doubt, the arguments by the learned counsel for the applicant are based on one application dated 26.3.1981, overlooking the earlier application dated 3.2.1981. I quite agree that the earlier application could not be overlooked if it was under consideration that in view of withdrawal the case could not proceed. It is true that the application dated 26.3.1981 for impleadment as plaintiff was filed in view of the earlier application of 3.2.1981 having become infructuous after the application for withdrawal on 21.2.1981 but the earlier application cannot lose its significance and must be deemed merged in the subsequent application. The withdrawal or impleadment a plaintiff could not be considered in isolation. In this perspective, considering the set of two applications dated 3.2.1981 and 26.3.1981 the suit could not be deemed withdrawn and I agree that the two rulings cited are distinguishable and do not apply. The withdrawal or impleadment a plaintiff could not be considered in isolation. In this perspective, considering the set of two applications dated 3.2.1981 and 26.3.1981 the suit could not be deemed withdrawn and I agree that the two rulings cited are distinguishable and do not apply. The order of withdrawal was also not possible because the new plaintiff as legal representative of the old plaintiff was already there with a prayer, the new plaintiff entered the arena in time and could not be ousted The observation in the ruling cited that no provision of law was there to refuse permission and to compel the plaintiff to proceed, is simply not applicable when the new plaintiff as legal representative of the old plaintiff has already appeared and the old plaintiff devoid of all rights in the subject of dispute loses all significance. 7. I also do not agree that the application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. being possible only during pendency of the suit could not be considered for withdrawal, because the order of withdrawal was not possible after the legal representative of the old plaintiff had already appeared with legitimate prayer. It may further be observed that the learned Additional Commissioner has placed reliance on the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 142 having a similar situation. He found no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court in passing the order dated 4.8.1981 and I quite endorse this view. Therefore, even the learned first appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeals and did not fail in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. 8. Accordingly, these two revision petitions are found to be without force and are hereby dismissed with costs. 9. This order shall govern revision petition nos. 3 and 4 of 1982-83/Faizabad.