IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1978 of 2007 1. NARESH RAI. 2. SURESH RAI. 3. NANDAN RAI. ALL THE THREE SON OF LATE DEVAN RAI. 4. CHANDAN RAI. 5. LALDEO RAI. 6. SHIV MAHADEO RAI. ALL THREE (4-6) ARE SON OF LATE JAI MANGAL RAI. 7. ANANDI RAI, SON OF LATE MISHIR RAI. 8. SURENDRA RAI. 9. RAM BABU RAI. 10. SUDIN RAI. 11. UJIR RAI. ALL THE FIVE (8-11) ARE SON OF LATE NOKHA RAI. 12. SHIV SAHAI RAI. 13. EKABALI RAI. 14. MALO RAI. ALL THE THREE (12 TO 14) ARE SON OF LATE BRAHMDEO RAI. 15. SHIVA RAI. 16. MUNNAR RAI. ALL THE TWO (15 TO 16) SON OF LATE BHAJJU RAI. 17. SAVITRI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMDEO RAI. 18. LAL BABU RAI. 19. SHYAM NARAYAN RAI. BOTH (18 TO 19) ARE SONS OF LATE RAMDEO RAI. 20. CHANDESHWAR RAI. 21. MANGAL RAI. 22. GENA RAI. 23. NATHO RAI. ALL THE FOUR (20 TO 23) ARE SONS OF LATE BHOLA RAI. ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- RAM NAGAR, TOLA GANJPAR, P.S. ATHMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA. …….PLAINTIFFS…….APPELLANTS…PETITIONERS. Versus 1. NASIB RAI, SON OF LATE RAGHUBAR RAI. - 2 - 2. RAM BALI RAI, SON OF LATE SUBA RAI. 3. PRASAD RAI. 4. KESHO RAI. BOTH ARE (3 TO 4) SONS OF LATE SITAB RAI. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAM NAGAR TOLA GANGPAR, P.S. ATHMALGOLA, DISTRICT- PATNA. …….DEFENDANTS 1ST SET…RESPONDENTS 1ST SET……..OPPOSITE 1ST PARTY. 5. KAPIL RAI. 6. AMIRAK RAI. 7. CHANDRIKA RAI. ALL THE THREE (5 TO 7) ARE SONS OF LATE BALDEO RAI, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAM NAGAR TOLA GANJPAR, P.S. ATHMALGOLA, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……….DEFENDANTS 2ND SET………RESPONDENTS 2ND SET……………………..OPPOSITE 2ND PARTY. ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. --------- 2. 16.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that 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 and a decision of this Court in Smt. Mina Devi Vrs. Smt. Jagtarni Devi and another, - 3 - reported in 2008(2) PLJR 451 and unreported decision in Uma Shankar and others Vs. Dr. Hamid Hussain and another (passed in C.R. No.1377 of 2006), Civil Revision may not be maintainable against an order passed by the appellate court altering, modifying, affirming or setting aside an order passed by the trial court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, learned counsel submits that the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 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. 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. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)