Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioner has filed the present application for setting aside the order, dated 21.12.2017, passed, in Title Suit No. 415 of 2011, by learned Sub Judge, Ballia, Begusarai, by which the petition, dated 16.02.2017, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file miscellaneous case, has been rejected.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that preliminary compromise decrees were passed in Title Suit No. 24 of 1994 and Title Suit No. 222 of 2003, by learned Sub Judge-I and Sub Judge- II, Begusarai, respectively, on the ground that the aforesaid decrees were passed without notice and on the basis of forged signature of the minors and others.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 24 of 1994 was filed on 02.02.1994 by Ajay Kumar Rastogi against the petitioner and others for partition of the properties including those of self-acquired properties of the petitioner’s family, impleading the petitioner and his younger brother, as defendants, who were minors at that point of time. The petitioner was born on 15.02.1982; whereas his brother, Vishnu Kumar Rastogi was born on 02.10.1986. On 17.11.1994, without service of notice upon the petitioner and his family members, who were parties in the suit, a forged compromise petition was filed on the basis of forged signature of the petitioner, his younger brother (both were minor at that point of time) and his old father, who had no knowledge about the institution of Title Suit No. 24 of 1994 and they neither appeared nor signed on the said compromise petition. Accordingly, on 14.10.1996, on the basis of forged compromise petition, a preliminary decree for partition was prepared/drawn. In the year 2003, another suit, bearing Title Suit No. 222 of 2003 for partition of the scheduled properties was filed fraudulently by one Pramila Devi, wife of Madan Prasad Rastogi, impleading the petitioner’s father as defendant and in this suit also, without notice and on the basis of forged compromise petition, a decree was passed and though the petitioner had attained the age of majority at that point of time, but he was not impleaded as party-defendant in the suit. However, the brother of the petitioner, Vishnu Kumar Rastogi was minor, but he was also not impleaded as party-defendant in the suit. On 16.06.2004, a preliminary compromise decree was passed by Sub Judge-IV, Begusarai, in Title Suit No. 222 of 2003. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2008. In the year 2011, when the petitioner came to know that his agnates are claiming lands of the petitioner on the basis of some unknown compromise decrees, which, according to the petitioner, was void, he filed Title Suit No. 415 of 2011 and the same was admitted on 03.02.2012 and notices were issued to the defendants. On 03.05.2012, the defendants filed their written statement, stating that the present suit against the compromise decrees is not maintainable. On 16.02.2017, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a petition, under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that on the wrong advise of his Counsel, the present suit was filed for declaring the compromise decrees, passed in Title Suit Nos. 24 of 1994 and 222 of 2003, as void and also prayed for injunction therein.

5. By the impugned order, dated 21.12.2017, learned Sub Judge, Ballia, Begusarai, rejected the petition, dated 16.02.2017, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., holding that for his fault, the petitioner is solely responsible and refused to allow the petitioner to withdraw the suit.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the wrong advise, the present suit challenging the compromise decrees passed in Title Suit Nos. 24 of 1994 and 222 of 2003, obtained on the b