IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASRTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.95/2008 30.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri A.K. Bhargava, for the petitioner. After filing the revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application No.15751 that the revision petition was filed after going through a judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this court reported in 2005 Vol.2RLR page 683 wherein this court has held that the remedy against the appellate order passed by the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 was of filing a revision under Section 115 CPC. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge on which the petitioner had based the revision petition had been set aside in appeal by the Division Bench wherein it has been held that the order is not revisable and the remedy lies under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition. In view of the above the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this revision petition and file a writ petition. In view of the above the revision petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner for filing a writ petition against the impugned order. The Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the documents and the Vakalatnama to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photo stat copies of the same on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a bona fide mistake and therefore in view of the fact that the vacations are to start he may be granted time to approach the Hon'ble Vacation Judge for seeking permission to get the writ petition listed and in the meanwhile the execution of the decree passed by the learned Tribunal may be stayed. Though, as has been held hereinabove, this revision petition itself was not maintainable however, looking to the fact that the learned counsel was swayed by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Ashu Gupta Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors. wherein the learned Single Judge had held that the remedy of the writ petition is not available and a revision petition ought to be filed and since the judgment of the Division Bench has not been reported as such the learned counsel for the petitioner was misled in filing this revision. In view of the above in the facts and circumstances on account of the bona fide mistake. I deem it it just and proper to direct that the interest of the petitioner who otherwise came before the court in time be protected and the execution of the decree stayed for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to file a writ petition and to approach the Hon'ble Vacation Judge in the matter for seeking permission to have the writ petition listed during the vacations. Subject to the above the revision petition, the stay petition and the application No.15751 shall stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS