JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 22-3-1980 through which the suit was permitted to be withdrawn by one Sheo Prasad one of the plaintiffs from payment of Rs. 50/- as costs with permission to file fresh suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. It transpires that the suit was originally filed by Sheo Prasad and his brother Mata Prasad. It was decreed by the trial Court under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The defendant Ram Sewak and others went up in appeal before the Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal Mata Prasad one of the plaintiff expired, whose heirs namely his sons Hari Shanker and Gunga who were minors were sought to be substituted and their mother was shown as guardian. An application had been made moved with delay but it was condoned on 22-3-1980 on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs. On the same date i.e. on 22-3-1980 an application was moved by Sheo Prasad only, one of the plaintiff to permit him to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. This application was allowed on the same date i.e. 22-3-1980. This order has been challenged in revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since the suit had been filed by Sheo Prasad and Mata Prasad both hence it could not be withdrawn only by one of the plaintiffs and unless the heirs of Mata Prasad had joined Sheo Prasad in the application for withdrawal of the suit, the learned Additional Commissioner could not pass any order about the withdrawal of this suit, hence the impugned order passed by him is beyond jurisdiction and must be quashed. 5. I find force in this argument. Since the heirs of Mata Prasad had not made any application to the learned Additional Commissioner about the withdrawal of the suit no order about the withdrawal of the suit could be passed by the learned Additional Commissioner or unless a proper notice had been issued to them or they had also joined Sheo Prasad in the application. Further since the heirs of Mata Prasad were minors the suit could not be permitted to have been withdrawn unless permission by the Court had been granted for the purpose. Further since the heirs of Mata Prasad were minors the suit could not be permitted to have been withdrawn unless permission by the Court had been granted for the purpose. Besides this it was also incumbent upon the Court to have appointed a guardian for the minors which was also not done pending. In such circumstances the impugned order dated 22-3-1980 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is entirely illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to be maintained. This revision is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 22-3-1980 regarding the withdrawal of the suit is hereby set aside and the appeal is remanded back to him to decide it afresh accordingly to law after appointing a guardian of the minors respondents, if any.