IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1867 of 2007 DIN DAYAL DUBEY, Son of Ramchandra Dubey, Resident of village Sapnautia, P.S. Sonhan, District Kaimur, Bhabhua …… Petitioner Versus 1. KADAI RAM 2. Ram Lal Ram 3. Mutur Ram 4. Komal Ram All are sons of late Ram Das Ram 5. Lal Muni Kuer, wife of late Dasai Ram 6. Parikha Ram 7. Moti Lal Ram 8. Sarifa Ram 9. Prabhu Ram 10. Mithai Ram All are sons of late Dasai Ram, all are resident of village Sapnautia, P.S. Sonhan, District Kaimur, Bhabhua ….. Opposite Parties ----------- For petitioner : Arabind Nath Pandey, Advocate ------ 3 12.03.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the impugned order having been passed against the appellate order affirming the order of the trial court passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this civil revision may not be maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others [2003(6) SCC 675] as well as by a Bench of this - 2 - Court in Smt. Mina Devi v. Smt. Jagtarni Devi & Anr. [2008(2) PLJR 451] as well as an unreported decision of this Court in C.R. No. 1377 of 2006 (Uma Shankar & ors. v. Dr. Hamid Hussain & anr.). However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the proviso to Section 115(1) of C.P.C. cannot take away the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in a properly constituted writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seek permission to withdraw this application to avail any other remedy available under law to the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Spd/ (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)