IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2288 of 2007 MOSSOMAT JAGDAMBA DEVI, Wife of Late Umakant Thakur, Resident of village Hansda Road, Gulabbagh, P.S. Sadar, District Purnia …. Plaintiff … Appellant … Petitioner Versus 1. ANARCHAND YADAV , Son of Late Dukha Yadav, Resident of village, P.s. Khajanchi Hat, District – Purnia 2. Deepak Kumar, Son of Late Harish Chandra Pd. Sah, R/o of village Maranga, P.s. Khajanchi Hat, District Patna 3. Smt. Sarswati Devi, W/o Parmeshwar Yadav, R/o Maranga Line Tola,P.S. Khajanchi Hat, District Patna …… Opposite Parties . ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Pd. Bhagat, Advocate ----- 2 13.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that this civil revision, since arises out of an order passed by the appellate court affirming the order passed by the trial court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may not be maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v Swaraj Developers and others, reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 659 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675. However, it 2 is submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the proviso to Section 115(1) of C.P.C. cannot take away the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in a properly constituted writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application to avail any other remedy which would be available to the petitioner under law. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)