Judgment :- A short, but interesting question arise in this revision. Can the plaintiff who has filed an application to withdraw the suit withdraw that application. 2. Respondent-plaintiff sought withdrawal of the suit filed by him against revision petitioner by filing an application of which notice was given to revision petitioner. Before order was pronounced on that application respondent filed another petitioner seeking withdrawal of that application. The court below allowed that application. That order is under challenge in this revision. 3. Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. permits the plaintiff to withdraw his suit at any time with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit. According to revision petitioner when once a request for withdrawal has been made it takes effect from the date of such petition and it is not open to the plaintiff to withdraw that application. Reliance is placed on the decision in Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others v. Abdul Qadir and others - AIR 1966 Allahabad 318 where it was held that no act is required to be done by the court to complete or effectuate the withdrawal of the suit. Withdrawal of the suit is itself its end. It is further observed that the provision is that the plaintiff may withdraw the suit. What is to be done is a unilateral act by the plaintiff. Neither defendant nor the court has any act to do to complete or effectuate it. It is further observed that the consequence of an act of withdrawal is that the plaintiff ceased to be a plaintiff before the court. If he is the only plaintiff and withdraws the whole of the suit, the suit comes to end and nothing remains pending before the court. In that view of the matter it was held that Order 23 Rule 1 does not require any order and that there can be no question of an order if no application is to be made by the plaintiff. It was held, that once a request for withdrawal has been made it takes effect immediately and withdrawal of that request is not permissible. 4. A different view is seen to have been taken by the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. The Madras High Court in the decision in Lakshmana Pillai and another v. Appalwar Alwar Ayyanagar and another - AIR 1923 Mad. 4. A different view is seen to have been taken by the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. The Madras High Court in the decision in Lakshmana Pillai and another v. Appalwar Alwar Ayyanagar and another - AIR 1923 Mad. 246 held that unless and until the court signified its intention to pass an order permitting withdrawal the petition could not operate as a termination of the suit. It was held further that the suit is still pending on the date of the petition withdrawing the withdrawal. There was thus no obstacle to the court in the exercise of its discretion dealing with the latter petition and dismissing the former and continuing the trial. Old field, J. observed that on general principles there does not seem to be any reason why withdrawal of a withdrawal should not be recognised. 5. In the decision in Yeshwant Govardhan v. Totaram Avasu and others -AIR 1958 Bom. 28 it was held that even if the plaintiff fails to make out his case on the merits of the application for withdrawal, if in law, the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw his application for withdrawal, the plaintiff cannot be prevented from making such an application. In that case the application for withdrawal was filed on 17-6-1952. No order was passed on that petition till the date of the application filed for withdrawal of that application. Order on that application was passed only on 29-8-1952 by which time the second application had been filed. The finding of the court below that it was not open to the plaintiff to ask for withdrawal of his application for withdrawal of the suit was found to be erroneous and it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw his application for withdrawal of the suit. 6. The Calcutta High Court in the decision in Rameswar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and others AIR 1986 Calcutta 19 had considered all the previous decisions on this subject as well as the power of the court to permit withdrawal of the application for withdrawal of the suit under S.151 C.P.C. There is no specific provision in the Code permitting withdrawal of an application for withdrawal of the suit. It was held that in such circumstances the court is not powerless to allow withdrawal of an application for withdrawal of a suit in exercise of its inherent power in a proper and suitable case. Differing from the Allahabad High Court it was held that the court has inherent power under S.151 C.P.C. to allow withdrawal of an application for withdrawal of a suit. But it was made clear that there must be some justifiable reasons for allowing withdrawal of the application for withdrawal of the suit. 7. This court had occasion to consider this aspect in the decision in Thomas George v. Skariah Joseph and another -1973 KLT 131 = AIR 1973 Ker.140. This court also differed from the view of the Allahabad High Court and held that a petition seeking withdrawal of the suit can be withdrawn by the plaintiff. This court held that in the case of a petition for withdrawal no orders are necessary. As such there is no reason why it could not be withdrawn before the court acts upon it. It is also seen observed that the second application was filed before the court judicially noticed the first application. Relying on these observations it is contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner that the court below had judicially recognised the first petition when once the petition had been entertained and that the court had acted upon it disentitling the plaintiff from withdrawing that application. I am afraid that such an interpretation is not warranted nor can it be inferred from the observations contained in that judgment, since there is sufficient indication to the contrary in that judgment. After differing from the decision in 1966 Allahabad (supra) Subramanian Poti, J. observed that withdrawal becomes irrevocable only when the court has occasion to exercise its mind on the fact of withdrawal brought to its notice. After that moment it is not open to the party to back out of it. Until that is brought to its notice the withdrawal has not been acted upon. Merely filing an application will not therefore amount to judicial notice and it cannot be said that the court had acted upon it. So long as the court had not approved the request of the plaintiff and had not passed orders on the application to withdraw the suit it cannot be said that the court had acted upon it. 8. Merely filing an application will not therefore amount to judicial notice and it cannot be said that the court had acted upon it. So long as the court had not approved the request of the plaintiff and had not passed orders on the application to withdraw the suit it cannot be said that the court had acted upon it. 8. Withdrawal is a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff. The court has only to grant permission subject to the conditions imposed in Order 23 C.P.C. If withdrawal can be permitted by the court there is a reason why the withdrawal of that application which also is a voluntary act is not permissible. Majority of the decisions cited are for permitting the plaintiff to withdraw his application for withdrawal. This court also has taken the same view. I am in complete agreement with the view expressed in those decisions and hold that a petition for withdrawal of a suit can be withdrawn by the plaintiff before the court acts upon it meaning thereby before the court passes order on that application. The revision is therefore liable to be dismissed and I do so. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.