IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1268 of 2007 1. RAMBILASH OJHA, SON OF CHANDRIKA OJHA. 2. RAVI BHUSAN OJHA @ MARKANDEY OJHA, SON OF RANBILASH OJHA. BOTH RESIDENT OF AT AND P.O. KHARHATAND, P.S. SIMRI, DISTRICT-BUXAR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA SIDHHANATH GHAT, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. ………………DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. GIRIJA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE GANGA DHARI TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUROUNDHA, P.S. DUMRAON, DISTRICT-BUXAR. 2. PRAMATHNATH PANDEY, SON OF LATE VISHNUDUTT PANDEY. 3. ANIL KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF PARAMNATH PANDEY. 4. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF PARAMNATH PANDEY. 5. ASHWINI KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF PARAMNATH PANDEY. 6. JAY NARAYAN PANDEY @ GUDDU PANDEY, SON OF DURGA DUTT PANDEY. 7. RAJDEO PANDEY @ CHHETAK PANDEY, SON OF DURGA DUTT PANDEY. 8. NAGESH DUTT PANDEY @ NANAK PANDEY, SON OF DURGA DUTT PANDEY. 9. DURGA DUTT PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAMSEVAK PANDEY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DUBHA, P.S. SIMRI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA SIDDHANATH GHAT, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. ……………………PLAINTIFFS/OPP. PARTIES 1ST SET. 10. VIJAY BHUSAN OJHA, SON OF RAMVILASH OJHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SIDHHANATH GHAT, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. 11. SMT. KANCHAN TIWARY, WIFE OF SRI ASHOK TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHITTTBARA - 2 - GAON, P.S. CHHITTTBARA GAON, DISTRICT- BALLIA, U.P. 12. SMT. RANJANA DUBEY, WIFE OF LATE AJAY KUMAR DUBEY, RESIDENT OF ZORAMANDIR, P.S. ARRA TOWN, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. .......................................................................NEWLY ADDED DEFENDANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 2ND SET. --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : M/s. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, Ranjan Kumar Dubey and Mrs. Sangeera Sharma, Advocates. ----------- 2. 8.2.2010. 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, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if this Civil Revision may not be maintainable , the proviso to Section 115(1) of C.P.C. cannot take away the right of the petitioners from challenging the impugned order by filing a properly constituted writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy which is available to them under - 3 - law. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)