IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2000 of 2007 SUDHIR MANDAL, SON OF LATE KARTIK MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWA, P.O. AND P.S. PIRPAINTY, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR……………PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. ………………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. JAGDISH MANDAL, SON OF LATE KARTIK MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWA, P.O. AND P.S. PIRPAINTY, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ….DEFENDANT IST PARTY…RESPONDENT IST PARTY… OPPOSITE IST PARTY. 2. BALRAM MANDAL, SON OF DASRATH MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARWA, P.O. AND P.S. PIRPAITNI, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ….DEFENDANT 2ND PARTY….RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY… OPPOSITE 2ND PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 2. 18.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Civil Revision may not be maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and others, reported in (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 659 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others reported in (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 675 as also the decision of this Court in Smt. Mina Devi Vs. Smt. Jagtarni Devi and another, reported in 2008(2) PLJR 451 and an unreported decision in Uma 2 Shankar and others Vs. Dr. Hamid Hussain and another (passed in C.R. No.1377 of 2006). However, it is submitted that proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot take away the right of the petitioner from challenging the impugned order by filing a properly constituted writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy which is available to the petitioner under law. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)