JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This revision has been filed by Third party-intervenor against order No. 24, dated 30.7.1997, passed by the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, permitting withdrawal of Title Appeal No. 31 of 1995. 2. It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail and only certain relevant events are noted. The present opposite party No. 1 who was the defendant in Title Suit No. 238 of 1984 filed by present opposite party No. 1 filed Title Appeal No..31 of 1995 before the District Judge, Khurda, against the decree of the trial Court. The present petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase the disputed property from present opposite party No. 1 and it is stated that an agreement was executed on 17.2.1993 and a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs had been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh was allegedly paid subsequently on 15.12.1995. It appears that during the pendency of the Title Appeal, a petition was filed by the apellant and the respondent in the Title Appeal for effecting compromise. However, while the said petition was under consideration, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC to be impleaded as a party alleging that the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell the property to the present petitioner and had received the consideration amount. The said application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by the present petitioner was posted to 24.6.1997 for filing objection by the appellant as well as the respondent in the appeal. On 24.7.1997, again the appellant and the respondent prayed for time to file objection and the matter was posted to 30.7.1997. On that day, the appellant initially filed an application praying for time to file objection. The present petitioner had filed hazira through his counsel. From the order-sheet, it appears that at that stage, a verified application under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC was filed by the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Copy of the said petition had not been served. The appeal and the connected M.J.C. No. 10 of 1997 were withdrawn from the file of the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar, and taken up by the District Judge and after hearing the Advocate for the appellant on the petition for withdrawal, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The appeal and the connected M.J.C. No. 10 of 1997 were withdrawn from the file of the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar, and taken up by the District Judge and after hearing the Advocate for the appellant on the petition for withdrawal, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. By order No. 25, dated 30.7.1997,"the appellate Court rejected the petition under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC as infructuous. 3. From the narration of events, it is apparent that the appellant by filing the petition for withdrawal behind the back of the present petitioner has evidently attempted to hoodwink the present petitioner. On 30.7.1997 itslef, the appellant had filed a petition praying for time to file objection to the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 and copy of the said time petition had been served. Thereafter, the petition for withdrawal of appeal was filed without service of copy and without disposing the petition under Order 1, Rule 10, or even the petition for adjournment, the District Judge has permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal evidently behind the back of the present petitioner though hazira had been filed. There is no doubt that in view of the petition for adjournment already filed, the counsel for the present petitioner who had filed hazira was not present at the time when order No. 24 dated 30.7.1997 was passed. In fact, that order itself does not indicate that the counsel for the present petitioner was present at the time when the matter was taken up. The order-sheet does not indicate that the appeal itself was called out for being taken up. When petition for being impleaded as party had already been filed, it would have been proper on the part of the appellate Court to first dispose of that matter, as in case the present petitioner would have been permitted to be impleaded as party (and may be, even as appellant), there would not have been any scope for the original appellant to withdraw the appeal. It is apparent that the appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to uphold the order No. 24 dated 30.7.1997 and consequential order No, 25 dated 30.7.1997. Both the orders are quashed. It is apparent that the appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to uphold the order No. 24 dated 30.7.1997 and consequential order No, 25 dated 30.7.1997. Both the orders are quashed. The appellate authority shall now proceed to decide about the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by the present petitioner in accordance with law and only after disposal of the said petition, the appellate Court shall consider the other application. It is made clear that directing the appellate Court to consider the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, should not be taken as expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition itself and the petition should be disposed of in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 4. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court 26 th October, 1998. Final Result : Allowed