IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1555 of 2007 1. MANORANJAN PRASAD, SON OF RAM JEEWAN PRASAD. 2. PAWAN KUMAR, MINOR SON OF RAM JEEWAN PRASAD. UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER, RAM JEEWAN PRASAD. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-BARI BADALPURA, P.O. AND P.S. KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………PLAINTIFFS…..APPELLANTS……PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SMT.CHINTA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI HARI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NAUSA NAWADA, P.O. MOBARAKPUR, P.S. PHULWARI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. MAINA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE RAM DAYAL YADAV @ JEETAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARI BADALPURA, P.O. AND P.S. KHAGAUL, DISTRICT- PATNA, PRESENT ADDRESS:-MAINA DEVI, PEON, PUNPUN DIVISION (IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT) BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, ANISABAD, PATNA. 3. MANOJ KUMAR. 4. SANJAY KUMAR. 5. SANJIV KUMAR. 6. RAJIV KUMAR. ALL SONS OF BALESHWAR SINGH OF VILLAGE JHALUPUR, P.S. PARSA BIGHA, P.O. NEWASI, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD. 7. SMT. SUSHMA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SATISH SINGH OF VILLAGE LAVAITH, P.S. DHANAURA, P.O. HAZARAT SAIN, DISTRICT-PATNA. 8. SMT. RITA DEVI, WIFE OF RAM SHARAN PRASAD OF VILLAGE DHUPARCHAK, P.S. PHULWARISHARIFF, P.O. ALAMPUR GONPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. 9. BISHUN DAYAL RAI, SON OF LATE PURNA BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARI BADALPURA, P.O. AND P.S. KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA…………PERFORMA DEFENDANT………...RESPONDENT..OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Senior Advocate and Manoranjan Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 2 2. 25.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that 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 as also the decision of this Court in Smt. Mina Devi Vs. Smt. Jagtarni Devi and another, reported in 2008(2) PLJR 451 and an unreported decision in Uma Shankar and others Vs. Dr. Hamid Hussain and another (passed in C.R. No.1377 of 2006) relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. However, it is submitted that proviso to Section 115(1) C.P.C. 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, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy available to the petitioners under law including the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai (Supra). In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision is 3 dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)