IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1182 of 2007 1. PANNA LAL SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMJI SINGH. 2. SURESH KUMAR SINGH. 3. KISHORE KUMAR ALIAS NARESH KUMAR. 4. CHANDAN KISHORE SINGH ALIAS MUNNA. 5. KAMAL KISHORE SINGH ALIAS KAMAL KISHORE ALIAS BHOLA. ALL SONS OF SRI PANNA LAL SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAHENDRU, ASHOK RAJ PATH, P.O. MAHENDRU, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. (DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT BELOW). ……………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. ANJANI KUMAR. 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD. 3. OM PRAKASH. 4. RABINDRA KUMAR. 5. BASANT KUMAR. 6. ANIL KUMAR. 7. SANJAY KUMAR. 8. AJAY KUMAR. ALL SONS OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD AND ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA AND POST OFFICE MAHENDRU, POLICE STATION SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. 9. MOSTT. URMILA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD AND WIDOW OF LATE NARESH PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF JOGIA MATH, SUTTA PATTI, SARAIYAGANJ, P.S. MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA AND POST OFFICE MAHENDRU, POLICE STATION- SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. 10. MANJU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD AND WIFE OF SRI NEEL KAMAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-PURANA BAZAR, LAKHISARAI, P.O. & P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. 2 11. SUNDARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA AND P.O. MAHENDRU, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. ….(PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT BELOW) ………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate. --------- 2. 15.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the impugned order being interlocutory in nature, 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. However, it is further submitted that proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot take away the right of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order under a properly constituted writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai (Supra). Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy which is available to the petitioners under law. 3 In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)