JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel. 2. Brief facts of the case as evident from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners filed original suit No. 150 of 1982 against the respondent No. 3 in the Court of Civil Judge Fatehgarh for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17191. Another suit being suit No. 113 of 1981 was filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17000/-. While both the suits were proceeding simultaneously certain well wishers of the parties intervened and the matter was settled out side the Court as a result of which both the parties agreed to withdraw their respective suits filed by them. 3. The petitioners on 10th May 1983 moved an application in their suit for decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties and on the same day an application 33 Kha was filed in suit No. 113 of 1981 by the respondent No. 3 for withdrawing his suit under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C.A.. Since the Presiding Officer was on leave no order could be passed on the application 33 Kha on 10th of May, 1983 and again on 24.5.1983 and 21.11.1983. In the meantime the application filed by petitioners for deciding their suit in terms of the comprise had already been allowed. The respondent No. 3 on 7.7.1983 filed an application 34 Kha before the Civil Judge Fatehragh for withdrawal of his application 33 Kha. The petitioners opposed the application 33 Kha by filing their objection 35 Kha. The Additional Civil Judge, Fatehgarh, respondent No. 2 by his order dated 17th May, 1986 allowed the application 34 Kha and directed the suit to proceed. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 87 of 1986 which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kannauj by his order dated 29th April, 1988 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court with a direction that an enquiry be made for ascertaining whether the signature of the respondent No. 5 on the application 33 Kha had been obtained by fraud. 5. 5. After remand, the trial Court vide its order dated 16.9.1989 again maintained its earlier order and by order dated 30.8.1990 the revision preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 Additional District Judge, Kannauj. 6. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the orders dated 16.9.1989 and 30.08.1990 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the plaintiff/respondent had moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C.A. he could not have been permitted to withdraw the application for withdrawal of a suit even before any order was passed on the withdrawal application. 8. He next contended that the right to file an application to withdraw has been expressly conferred by Rule 1 (I) of Order 23 C.P.C.A.. but there is no provision conferring the right to revoke the withdrawal of a suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others v. Abdul Qadir and others, AIR 1966 All 318 . 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Courts below committed a manifest error of law in allowing the application 34 Kha moved by the respondent No. 3 for withdrawing the application 33 Kha filed by him in original suit No. 150 of 1982 for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the signature of the respondent No. 3 on the said application had been obtained by the petitioners fraudulently although there was no material on record warranting the findings recorded by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 in this regard. 10. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 to oppose this writ petition. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record as well as the impugned orders. 12. As far as the first contention raised by the petitioners that once an application for withdrawal of a suit has been filed the same cannot be withdrawn even before the orders are passed on the withdrawal application i.e. that the suit as far as the plaintiff is concerned is struck off from the file is concerned the same has substance and is liable to be accepted. But the issue involved in this writ petition is that whether an application for withdrawal of suit purporting to have been filed by a plaintiff cannot be allowed to be withdrawn even where such plaintiff satisfies the Court that filing of the application for withdrawal was not a result of his voluntarily act but the same was procured by practising fraud and by mis-representation and whether that the Courts below committed a patent illegality in permitting the respondent No. 3 to withdraw the application moved by him for withdrawal of his suit on the ground that the signature of the respondent No. 3 on the application 33 Kha had been obtained by the petitioners fraudulently. 13. I have carefully gone through the impugned orders and I find that the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 are based upon relevant considerations and supported by valid reasons. The respondent No. 2 in his order after considering the entire fact and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record recorded a categorical finding of fact that the signature of the respondent No. 3 on the application 33 Kha had been obtained by the petitioners fraudulently. The said finding of fact was affirmed by the respondent No. 1 in his order by which he dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of the respondent No. 2 after elaborately considering and evaluating the grounds on which the petitioners had challenged the order of the respondent No. 1 before him. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the signature of the respondent No. 3 on the application 33 Kha had been obtained by the petitioners is a finding of fact based upon relevant material and hence not liable to interfered by this Court in the exercise of his power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show that the aforementioned finding of fact suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity and thus despite accepting the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners I refuse to interfere with the impugned orders for the reason that there is sufficient material on record indicating that the signature of the respondent No. 3 on the application 33 Kha purported to have been moved by him for withdrawal of original suit No. 150 of 1982 had been obtained by the petitioners fraudulently as such it cannot be said that the application 33 Kha had been moved the plaintiff/respondent No. 3 voluntarily out of his own will or on his own accord and thus he had every right to seek withdrawal of the said application. Thus the second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners has no force and the same is turned down. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. 15. The writ petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. ————