IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1284 of 2007 SHAMBHU PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BAKERGANJ, P.O. BANKIPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………………………..DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus 1. RAJEEV KUMAR @ RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF SRI RAM BABU, RESIDENT OF TREVENI NIKETAN, MAKHANIA GALI, BAKERGANJ BAZAZA, P.O. BANKIPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY 1ST SET. 2. HARI NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, SON OF LATE LALESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MAKHANIA GALI, BAKERGANJ BAZAZA, P.O. BANKIPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, BUDDHA MARG, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………DEFENDANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 2ND SET. -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate. ------- 2. 15.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 - 2 - 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 petitioner 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 petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision to avail any other remedy which is available to the petitioner under law. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)