JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - The Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association and others (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Church of North India and others (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). The suit was decreed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar on October 4, 1979. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment dated October 4, 1979, the plaintiffs preferred appeal. On November 29, 1983 when the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Additional District Judge, on the basis of a prayer made by learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, permitted him to withdraw the suit as well the appeal as there were formal defects in the suit. The judgment and decree under appeal were set aside and the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. It is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge in the revision petition preferred by the petitioners-defendants. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. I have heard Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners. 4. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Order 23 Rule 1 sub-rule (1) CPC does not apply to appeals and the right of the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit is not absolute right but is subject to the rights of the defendants which the defendants have got under the decree. The plaintiffs have been non-suited mainly on the ground that they have no locus standi to file the suit. 5. It is a fact that the suit was hotly contested. As many as 24 issues besides the issue of relief were framed by the learned trial Court. Issues No. 7 and 8 which are material issues, were decided against the plaintiffs which relate to the locus standi of Shri S. Haque and Rev. Symporium; and whether Shri S. Haque is the Secretary of the plaintiff-Society. Apart from these, other material issues were decided against the plaintiffs. 6. Adverting to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants had stated that he had no objection to the withdrawal of the suit except that he presses for heavy costs. Thus, Mr. Apart from these, other material issues were decided against the plaintiffs. 6. Adverting to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants had stated that he had no objection to the withdrawal of the suit except that he presses for heavy costs. Thus, Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that any statement made by the counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 8 in the form of concession made by him ought not to have been made nor this admission should have weighed with the Appellate Court which was bound in law to judicially determine the matter and safeguard the interests of the petitioners as also of the defendants No. 2 to 8. 7. Where the decree passed by the trial Court is challenged in appeal, whether it would be open to the plaintiff at this stage to withdraw the suit so as to destroy that decree ? This point has been set at rest by the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported as R. Rathinavel Chettiar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, JT 1999(2) SC 468. It has been held that where a decree passed by the trial Court is challenged in appeal, it would not be open to the plaintiff at that stage to withdraw the suit so as to destroy that decree. The rights which have come to be vested with the parties to the suit under the decree cannot be taken away by withdrawal of suit at that stage unless very strong reasons are shown that the withdrawal would not affect or prejudice anybodys vested rights. 8. Every suit, if it is not withdrawn or abandoned, ultimately results in a decree as defined in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This definition has to have the following essential elements as observed by their Lordships in para 10 of R. Rathinavel Chettiars case (supra) : "(i) There must have been a adjudication in a suit; (ii) The adjudication must have determined the rights of the parties in respect of, or any of the matters in controversy. (iii) Such determination must be conclusive determination resulting in a formal expression of the adjudication." Under para 17, their Lordships further observed as under :- "Kedar Naths case (supra) was followed in Kanhaiya and others v. Mst. (iii) Such determination must be conclusive determination resulting in a formal expression of the adjudication." Under para 17, their Lordships further observed as under :- "Kedar Naths case (supra) was followed in Kanhaiya and others v. Mst. Dhaneshwari and another, AIR 1973 Allahabad 212, in which it was again laid down that the plaintiff does not have an unqualified or unfettered right under Order 23 Rule 1(1) CPC to withdraw the suit at the appellate stage when rights have accrued to the respondents under the decree." 9. Again adverting to the impugned order, apparently no application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC was moved before the Appellate Court and on the oral request made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge reads as under : "..........I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the written statement wherein objection was specifically taken regarding the locus standi of the appellant to bring the present suit. In the course of the judgment also in para No. 21 it was observed by the learned trial Court that plaintiff No. 2 was not proved to have any authority on behalf of appellant-Society to bring the suit. In view of these circumstances, there is certainly merit in the submission of the learned Counsel, Shri Atma Ram, and there are formal defects in the suit......." 10. The defects as pointed was due to the plaintiffs own fault and these defects were pointed out by the defendants in the written statement. Thus, the plaintiffs was aware of the same, yet they tried to avoid it. Thus, in such circumstances, if the defect is due to the plaintiffs own fault, the Court would be acting illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The plaintiff cannot take the benefit of Order 23 Rules 1 and 2 CPC at the stage of appeal. In this regard, reliance is also placed on Baru Ram and another v. Baldeva and others, 1994 PLJ 144. 11. The plaintiff cannot take the benefit of Order 23 Rules 1 and 2 CPC at the stage of appeal. In this regard, reliance is also placed on Baru Ram and another v. Baldeva and others, 1994 PLJ 144. 11. There is catena of judgments on the point i.e. sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23 CPC gives unqualified right to the plaintiff to withdraw their suit so long as the suit is pending and no vested rights have accrued in favour of the defendants. Once a suit is decided and decree passed, it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the issues in controversy of the suit and therefore, at the stage of appeal though it may be in continuation of the suit, the plaintiff has no absolute right to withdraw the suit under Order 23 Rule 1, sub-rule (1) CPC, as has been observed in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Masjid Patti Niyamatpur and others, 1999(1) PLJ 373. 12. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar is set aside and the appeal is remanded for deciding it on merits in accordance with law. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to appear before the District Judge Amritsar on March 15, 2000. The learned District Judge after giving notice to the opposite party, shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously as it relates to the year 1983. Revision allowed.