Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 5-9-1985 passed by Sri R.P. Verma, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Patna in Title Suit No. 307 of 1985 whereby and whereunder he granted leave to plaintiff No. 1 to withdraw the entire suit in spite of the objections raised in this regard by the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff No. 2 was allegedly the minor adopted son of the plaintiff No. 1 opposite party No. 9. 2. The petitioner as also the opposite party No. 9 filed a suit for declaration that certain documents as described in details in the first schedule appended to the plaint were forged fabricated, invalid and they were executed without consideration as such were liable to be cancelled. Apart from the aforementioned reliefs, the plaintiff further prayed for a decree for injunction restraining the respondents from creating any disturbances over the suit land. 3. After the institution of the aforementioned suit the plaintiff No. 1 filed an application to the effect that he was misled and defrauded by one Siya Ram Singh and one Kapil Deo Singh and having been so defrauded, he described the plaintiff No, 2 in the plaint as his adopted son. 4. The aforementioned application filed on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 was opposed by the minor plaintiff No. 2. The learned Court below by the impugned order granted leave to the plaintiff No. 1 to withdraw the entire suit. The material portion of the said order is as follows: Having heard the learnd lawyers for the parties and on perusal of the case record and also in the circumstances of the case I do not find any reason to compel the plaintiff No. 1 to prosecute his case when he is not willing to do so. No doubt, the plaintiff is the master of his suit and he was option either to proceed with the case or withdraw the same. The defendant has no objection if the suit is withdrawn by the plaintiff No. 1. The only question rests if the protection of the interest of the plaintiff No. 2 who is minor and said to be the adopted son of the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant has no objection if the suit is withdrawn by the plaintiff No. 1. The only question rests if the protection of the interest of the plaintiff No. 2 who is minor and said to be the adopted son of the plaintiff No. 1. In the circumstances of the case, if the plaintiff No. 2 desires to ventilate his grievances against the defendants he is at liberty to sue a fresh, but he as a minor son of the plaintiff No. 1 cannot compel the later to continue and prosecute the suit. 5. In my opinion, the learned Court below has committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. In terms of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code Civil Procedure the Court may grant leave to the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, but such leave cannot be granted when the same is claimed by one of the plaintiffs and opposed by the others. Further, if the allegations made by the plaintiff No. 1 to the effect that he was misled by some persons in describing the plaintiff No. 2 on his adopted son, in such an event, the learned Court below could have transposed him to the category of the defendant and continue the suit keeping the plaintiff No. 2 as the sole plaintiff. 6. In my opinion, the learned Court below had exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the plaintiff No. 1 to withdraw the entire suit simply on the ground that the plaintiff No. 2 is minor. This aspect, of the matter appears to be covered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mt. Ram Dei V/s. Mt. Babu Rani AIR 1922 Pat 489. 7. In this view of matter, this Civil Revision Application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Court below shall now proceed with the case in accordance with law. 8. If and when an application is filed by the plaintiff No. 1 either for his withdrawal from the suit or his transposition to the category of defendant, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit by the learned court below.