IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.699 of 2010 AYODHYA SAH, SON OF LATE SHAMBHU SAH, RESIDENT OF MAUZA AHIRPURWA, P.S. ARRAH TOWN, P.O. ARRAH, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. …………………………………PLAINTIFF…PETITIONER. Versus 1. BAIJU SAH. 2. BAIJNATH SAH, BOTH SONS OF LATE SHIVRAJ SAH, RESIDENT OF MAUZA LALGANJ, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT, RESIDING AT MOHALLA-AHIRPURWA, P.S. ARRAH TOWN, P.O. ARRAH, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ……………………DEFENDANTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate. ----------- 4. 26.8.2010. The office has forwarded a report that this Civil Revision filed under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction), Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) does not appear to be maintainable in view of the fact that the suit filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant has been dismissed. A Full Bench of this Court in Mostt. Sarswati Devi and Others Vs. Kunti Devi and another, reported in 1991(2) Bihar Law Judgments 216 as well as another Full Bench of this Court in Md. Jainul Ansari and Others Vs. Md. Khalil, - 2 - reported in 1990(2) P.L.J.R. 378, has held that the provisions as contained in sub Section 8 of Section 14 of the Act does not impose bar on preferring an appeal from a decision of court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction. The bar is only operative against the order of eviction of the tenant passed in favour of the plaintiff. In the above view of the matter, an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before an appropriate forum would be maintainable. From bare reading of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would be manifest that a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be maintainable in this case for the reason that the same would only be maintainable if there is no provision of preferring any appeal against the order impugned. In the above view of the matter, it is quite clear that if the suit of plaintiff filed for eviction of the tenant even on the ground of personal necessity is dismissed then the only course open for challenging the aforesaid order would be by preferring an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest - 3 - the stamp report and seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. Permission is accorded. This Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to avail a remedy against the impugned order by preferring an appeal before the appropriate forum. If such appeal is preferred before the appropriate forum within six weeks from the date of this order alongwith a petition for condoning the delay taking a ground that this revision was preferred bonafide against the impugned order, the court concerned shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after consideration of such averments made on behalf of the petitioner. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)