ORDER : S.K. Keshote, J. These two Civil Revision Applications are directed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the orders dated 24/7/98 below Ex.167 & 169 of the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Regular Civil Suit No.1282/89. 2. Vide Ex.167 the plaintiff petitioner filed a pursis for the unconditional withdrawal of the Civil Suit filed by him. 3. Vide Ex.169, the defendant No.2 respondent No.2 Nanjibhai Devsibhai Patel prayed for impleading him as a plaintiff No.2 in the said, which has been granted vide impugned order passed below it by the trial court. 4. The Civil Revision application No.1321/98 is filed by the plaintiff - petitioner against the order of the learned trial court passed below Ex.167. 5. Civil Revision Application impugned No.1322/98 is filed against the order passed by the trial court below Ex.169. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner contended that the plaintiff has absolute and indefeasible rights to withdraw his suit unconditionally. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is next contended that even if the case of the respondent No.2 herein is taken to be correct for the sake of the argument, still he could not have resisted the pursis filed by the plaintiff for unconditional withdrawal of suit. The application filed by him for impleading him as plaintiff No.2 in the suit could not have been allowed. The reason, what the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended is obvious as he has his own independent civil right and for the enforcement thereof, there is no hurdle or any legal impediment in his way to file a separate and independent suit. The suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff could not be ordered to be continued only because the respondent No.2 pleaded some subsequent agreement in between the plaintiff and himself in respect of the suit land. Lastly it is contended that the learned trial court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in permitting the respondent No.2 to be impleaded as party in the suit only to disallow the plaintiff to withdraw his suit unconditionally. 7. Lastly it is contended that the learned trial court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in permitting the respondent No.2 to be impleaded as party in the suit only to disallow the plaintiff to withdraw his suit unconditionally. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 replying to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the fact that the plaintiff assigned and subrogated whatever rights he was having in the land in dispute to the respondent No.2, the learned trial court has not committed any error much less of the jurisdictional error in granting his application for his impleadment in the suit. It is next contended that when this application has been granted by the learned trial court the pursis filed by the respondent No.1 for the withdrawal of the suit has rightly been not granted by the court. Lastly, it is contended that in case the defendant No.2 respondent No.2 has not impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit then he will suffer irreparable loss and it will also result injustice to him, as by now his suit may become barred by limitation. 8. I had given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. On the basis of the agreement to sell which has been executed by the defendant No.1 - respondent No.1 in favour of the plaintiff - petitioner of the suit land he filed the suit for specific performance thereof. This suit has been filed in the year 1989. The alleged agreement to sale on the basis of which what the defendant No.2 - Respondent No.2 praying for his impleadment as a plaintiff in the suit is dated 29/8/91. The supplementary agreement alleged has been executed by the present petitioner i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff on 14/6/96. Despite of all these agreements, the respondent No.2 at any point of time not prayed for his impleadment in the suit. I find sufficient merits in contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner that the petitioner has absolute and indefeasible rights to withdraw his suit unconditionally. It is understandable that where the plaintiff is praying for withdrawal of his suit with liberty to file fresh suit, in appropriate case, the court may decline to grant the same. I find sufficient merits in contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner that the petitioner has absolute and indefeasible rights to withdraw his suit unconditionally. It is understandable that where the plaintiff is praying for withdrawal of his suit with liberty to file fresh suit, in appropriate case, the court may decline to grant the same. But in a case where the plaintiff is only desiring to withdraw his suit unconditionally, ordinarily nobody else can object to such a pursis or the application nor the court may decline to grant such prayer. The third party if has any rights in the subject matter of the suit, I fail to see how it can object or permitted to be objected or allowed to defeat an application for withdrawal of the suit filed by the plaintiff and more so that he may be impleaded as a party to the suit. If he has his own independent right, title or interest in the property in dispute, as alleged by him certainly, he has remedy for enforcement thereof. But in suit which the plaintiff decides to withdraw it unconditionally, the court may not grant the prayer made by the third party for its impleadment as party plaintiff therein. If the respondent No.2, as what it is alleged, has some right in the disputed property by assignment or subrogation, it is always open to him to take appropriate legal remedy for the enforcement thereof. But for that purpose, he can not object the unconditional withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to continue the suit merely because the third party has claiming creation of his rights in disputed property by assignment or subrogation. The learned trial court has clearly committed a material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction in declining to grant the pursis of the plaintiff - petitioner for the unconditional withdrawal of the suit. The court is not concerned with what would have been effect of the withdrawal of the suit on the alleged rights of the third party alleged to have been accrued in the suit property by assignment or subrogation. The court is not concerned with what would have been effect of the withdrawal of the suit on the alleged rights of the third party alleged to have been accrued in the suit property by assignment or subrogation. The third party have a remedy and it could have availed of the same but, in case within the period of limitation that remedy is not availed of and the plaintiff - petitioner decides to withdraw the suit unconditionally, he cannot be forced by the court to continue the suit by substitution of third party as plaintiff therein. The assignment or the subrogation of the alleged rights in suit property in favour of third party, the respondent No.2 herein as per its own case accrued to him in the year 1991 but he has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure after long period and I fail to see any justification in his action to come up for such a prayer in court at this stage. He has not filed any suit for the enforcement of his alleged right in suit property. This matter needs to be considered from a different approach also. 10. The respondent No.2 prayed in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for his impleadment in suit as plaintiff No.2 The plaintiff petitioner has not admitted the claim of the respondent No.2. Not only this the defendant respondent No.1 has also not admitted his claim. The respondent No.2 now wants to establish his rights qua the plaintiff petitioner in the suit property. So in this suit the dispute now to be decided in between third party respondent No.2 and plaintiff - petitioner. But in the suit both under the court order if it is granted his application, will be the plaintiffs. More so how a third party can be impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit where the plaintiff in suit is not agreeable for his impleadment. The learned trial court has lost site of the one important aspect that in a suit filed by the plaintiff after paying the court fee the third party wants to get a decision for his rights. Not only this in the suit no such cause of action is pleaded and also nor any prayer. The learned trial court has lost site of the one important aspect that in a suit filed by the plaintiff after paying the court fee the third party wants to get a decision for his rights. Not only this in the suit no such cause of action is pleaded and also nor any prayer. How altogether a different, distinct and separate cause of action can be gone into and decided in this suit and that too between plaintiffs themselves. Whether by this simple impleadment of third party as plaintiff in suit in which the original plaintiff had come on different cause of action against a person other than third party this dispute between them can be gone into and decided? An obvious reply to this question will certainly be in negative. In the suit the third party respondent No.2 is neither a necessary or proper party. 11. In case this order is allowed to stand, it will occasion a failure of justice and cause injury to the plaintiff - petitioner as he has to continue the suit which he desirous of withdrawal of the same. 12. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case, the order of the learned trial court impugned in Civil Revision Application No.1321/98 below Ex.167 cannot be allowed to stand. 13. In the result the Civil Revision application No.1321/98 is allowed and the order of the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur dated 24/6/98 below Ex.167 in Regular Civil Suit No.128/89 is set aside and the pursis for the withdrawal of the Regular Civil Suit No.128/89 is granted and the plaintiff petitioner is permitted to withdraw this suit unconditionally and accordingly the Regular Civil Suit No.128/89 is dismissed with no order as to costs. The learned trial court is directed to draw the decree in suit accordingly. 14. The Regular Civil Suit No.1321/98 has been dismissed by this court and when the suit now itself no more survives, no question does arise to grant the application of the third party - respondent No.2 to implead him as plaintiff No.2 in this suit. As a consequence of acceptance of civil revision application No.1321/98 the order of the trial court impugned in this civil revision application No.1322/98 below Ex.169 cannot be allowed to stand. As a consequence of acceptance of civil revision application No.1321/98 the order of the trial court impugned in this civil revision application No.1322/98 below Ex.169 cannot be allowed to stand. In the result, the civil revision application No.1322/98 succeeds and same is allowed without any orders as to costs. Application allowed.