JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dated 20-3-1984. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was contested between the parties. Share was decided and the final decree was prepared. First and second appeal were filed against the final decree and decided. After that the plaintiff of the suit filed a withdrawal application before the trial court that he does not want to proceed with the case, therefore, he should be allowed to withdraw the suit. The trial court has allowed the withdrawal of the suit vide its order dated 25-9-1982. Revision filed against the order before the learned Addl. commissioner has been referred to this court with the recommendation that the lower court should be directed to decide the withdrawal application afresh. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. There is no dispute regarding the shares of the parties. Both the parties admit that each party has 1/5th share in the disputed plots. The only dispute between the parties is that particular plots were given to the particular share-holder in the well-deed dated 31-10-1975. The lots has not been prepared according to that. This is not the ground for withdrawal of the suit. Both the parties have been recorded over the disputed plots jointly. Actually they would have moved the mutation application for their specific plot which were given in the Will. It is their mistake. This mistake cannot be corrected now within this partition suit. When the suit is finally decided no one can be allowed to withdraw the suit otherwise the every suit decided against the plaintiff he can withdraw the suit against the person who has obtained the decree in their favour. Since there has been no pending suit in the present proceeding, therefore, the trial court was not justified to permit to withdraw the suit. It is also alleged that parties have filed the suit under Section 229-B; it will be a legal question purely to be adjudicated whether any particular plot given to particular person will have exclusive right. This question cannot be adjudicated in partition suit. 5. It is also alleged that parties have filed the suit under Section 229-B; it will be a legal question purely to be adjudicated whether any particular plot given to particular person will have exclusive right. This question cannot be adjudicated in partition suit. 5. In these circumstances of the case the order passed by the trial court is beyond jurisdiction, therefore, it is set aside and the revision is accepted accordingly and referring order is modified accordingly.