^\ OF Wrlt of 2811 Decree Holder R.esRORderits Judgment debtors Ram Awatar Agravval, S/o. iats Somchand Agrawal, aged about 70 years, R/o. Ashwanl Nagsr, Ralpur, Djstrict Ralpur (C.G.) \/ersus 1. Abdui RazzaR, S/o. iate Bux, aged about 70 years, 2. Smt.Haseena Begam, W7o. Abdul Rszzak, aged about 55 ysars, Both R/'o. House No.30/304, Brahmanpsra Ward, Rajpur; District Raipur (C.G.) ('vVrit. Petltion under ArticEe 227 of the Constitutloii of indla) Mr.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocste with l-/1s Sarina Khan, counsei foT the petitioner. 'Hon'ble rvlr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (27-9-2011) 1: By this writ petition under Artlcle 227 of the Constjtutlon of india th8 petltioner has chaiienged the iegaljty & propriety of the order dated 12.5.2011 by 5th Civji Judge Class-i; Raipur In Executlon Case N0.151-A/65, whereby the Court has dlsmissed the sppiteatlon for sxecution on the ground thst saie deed has already been executsd and IRJS Court has disposed ofWrlt Petitlon (227) No.6006 of 2010 vide order dated 28.2.2011 with ths directlon that for delivery of possession, the respondent/petiticnsr herein Is required to file a separate suit for partltloR. 2. Para 4 of the aforesald order reads as under:- "IR view of sbove, the petition ss dlsposed of and the trial court js djrected to declde the execution procesdsng filed by the respondent in accordance with law so far as execution of the sale deed is concerned. So far as deiiyer/ of possession is concemed,the respondent Is required to fiie a separate siiit for psrtition. No order ss t0 CGSIS." -^ ^5^ 1 s-j'"3i 8 '^. '^iy/ -^. I ^ .L' ^- ^ 3. After some. arguments, iearned counsel for the petltloner submits that whlie passing the order by this Court in VVrit Petltlon (227) No.6006 of 2010 provisiORS of law have been ignored, therefore, he seeks to wlthdraw thls. writ petiti'OR with liberty to fl!e appropriate review petition before this Court for reviewing the ordsr dated 28.2.2011 passed in Writ Petitlon (227) No.6006 of 201 0. 4. The writ petition is dlsmjssed as wlthdrawn wlth the aforesaid ilberty avaiiabie under the law. No order as to costs. 5. Interim appjication stands dlsposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge INNNN(11»(