JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This is a, reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 99/79 of 1978, Ghazipur - Ram Shanker Rai v. Ram Chandra and others. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are the Ram Shanker Rai Revisionist filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Lalta Prasad and others in the court of the Assistant Collector 1st class, Saidpur, Ghazipur. The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise and the final decree was passed on July 23, 1978. At the stage when the Lekhpal was summoned to prepare the lots, the plaintiff Ram Shaker Rai moved an application on November 17, 1978 for withdrawal of the suit. Objections were filed by the defendant on this application. The trial court rejected the application for withdrawal on November 17, 1978. Aggrieved by this order of the trail court, the plaintiff preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order dated July 9, 1979 made a reference and recommended to set aside the order of the trial court dated November 17, 1978. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties have also perused the record. Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that under Order XIII, C.P.C the revisionist has every rights to withdraw the suit. His second submission it that the revisionist does not want partition of his share. He is not withdrawing the primary decree. Sri Hari Shanker, learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that under Order XXIII, C.P.C. only a suit could be withdrawn and not a decree. His second submission is that since the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise it operates as estoppel. The learned Additional Commissioner relying on Kamta and another v. Gaya Prasad, AIR 1972 Alld. 143 has recommended to set aside the order of the trail counsel for the opposite party is that the land being less than 3? acres could be put to sale and divided among the landless persons. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also respectfully gone through the ruling cited by the learned Additional commissioner. acres could be put to sale and divided among the landless persons. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also respectfully gone through the ruling cited by the learned Additional commissioner. It has been held by Hon'ble K.B. Asthana, J. in the case referred to above that sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII C.P.C. confers an unqualified right to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit at any time. Since an appeal is a continuation of the suit, the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit at any time. Since an appeal is a continuation of the suit, the right of the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit inheres even at the appellate Stage. the Hon'ble Judge has also referred to the rulings given by the Hon'be Supreme court in Hulasi Ram v. K.B. Das, AIR 1968 S.C. 111 .. The above ruling is of no help to the revisionist because the face are different. In the present case, the suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise. Where the parties have entered into a compromise which was accepted by the parties as well as the court and the preliminary decree was prepared, the compromise will operate as estoppel and the revisionist therefore, could not withdraw the suit. 5. In the result, the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is not acceptable and the revision petition is dismissed.