IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.38 of 2010 1. MADAN PRASAD, SON OF SRI HAZARI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BRAHMPURA (SODA GODAM), WARD NO.1, P.O. M.I.T., ANCHAL-MUSHARI, P.S. BRAHMPURA, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 2. SMT. VEENA PRASAD, WIFE OF SRI MADAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BRAHMPURA (SODA GODAM), WARD NO.1, P.O. M.I.T., ANCHAL-MUSHARI, P.S. BRAHMPURA, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. …………………………………….PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS. Versus 1. MUNNA KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAM NARAIN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BRAHAMPURA (SODA GODAM), WARD NO.3, P.O. M.I.T., P.S. BRAHAMPURA, ANCHAL-MUSHARI, SUB DIVISION AND MUNSIFI- MUZAFFARPUR EAST, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. …………………………DEFENDANT-OPPOSITE PARTY. ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. K.N. Diwakar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate. ---------- 2. 19.1.2010. Though today the matter with regard to condoning the delay in filing this Civil Revision has been placed, however, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the law laid down in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and others {(2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 659)} and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others {(2003)6 Supreme - 2 - Court Cases 675)} holding that the Civil Revision would not be maintainable if the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, he may be permitted to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy, if available to them, under law. Learned counsel for the opposite party raises no objection to that. This Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)