IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.110 of 2010 Rajendra Bhagat, S/O Late Sheo Pujan Bhagat, R/O Vill.- Bhairopur, P.O. and P.S.- Doriganj, Distt.- Saran ………. Petitioner Versus Mahendra Bhagat, S/O Late Bhagwan Bhagat, R/O Vill.- Bhairopur, P.O. and P.S.- Doriganj, Distt.- Saran. ……. Respondent. For the petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate Mr. Navin Nikunj, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate. Mr. D.N.Kanojia, Advocate. ----------- 5. 05.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner as well as learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 5.11.2007 by which a Bench of this court dismissed Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2005 as withdrawn by the following orders: “After some arguments, in presence of the counsel for the opp. Party, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw this application to file statutory appeal. This application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The question of limitation etc., however, shall be considered in accordance with law.” 3. This case has a chequered history as Eviction Suit No. 7 of 1998 was filed by plaintiff-respondent for eviction of defendant-petitioner on the grounds of bonafide personal necessity as well as expiry of the fixed period of tenancy. The said suit was tried under the provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and was contested by the defendant 2 and finally the suit was decreed on contest by Munsif-II, Chapra vide his judgment and decree dated 24.09.2005 after arriving at considered findings with respect to the relationship between the parties and the grounds taken by the plaintiff. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2005 under the Proviso to Sub section (8) of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. In the said civil revision, the office raised question of maintainability of the civil revision as to whether a revision or an appeal is the proper remedy for challenging the judgment and decree of eviction suit passed with reference to the provision of the said Act, as in case the suit is tried under Section 14 of the Act then revision will be the remedy, but if it is tried as a regular suit then appeal would be the remedy 5. In the said circumstances, this court on the request of the petitioner granted time to him vide order dated 25.07.2006 to ascertain the manner in which the suit was to be tried and to file a proper affidavit in this regard. Record shows that no such affidavit was filed by the petitioner and hence on 30.08.2006 notices were directed to be issued to the respondent in maintainability matter as well as in the admission matter and in the mean time the judgment and decree of eviction suit passed by the trial court was stayed and thereafter vide order dated 22.02.2007 the records of the eviction suit was called for. 6. On 6.10.2007 the opposite party stated that 3 plaintiff-petitioner had also filed Misc. Case No. 08 of 2006 for review of the judgment and decree of the trial court, which is pending before Munsif-II, Chapra. In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if such a review case is pending, he shall withdraw the said miscellaneous case and shall pursue the civil revision application. But suddenly on 5.11.2007 when the case was again listed, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the civil revision to file statutory appeal and accordingly the said civil revision was dismissed as withdrawn. This order is sought to be reviewed. 7. After the said withdrawal the petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 3 of 2007 against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court, but the said title appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. V, Saran vide his judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008 on the ground of limitation as well as maintainability of the title appeal holding that if title suit is decided under the provision of Section 14 of the Act, there is a bar in filing an appeal against it in the aforesaid Act. 8. The said order of the lower appellate court was challenged by the petitioner in Second Appeal No. 416 of 2008 in which the matter was considered in detail and it was finally held that the proceeding of the suit continued under the Provision of Section 14 of the Act and hence, title appeal or second appeal was not maintainable and proper remedy against such order of eviction was by way of filing civil revision under the Proviso to Sub section 4 (8) of Section 14 of the Act. Accordingly, the said second appeal was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a petition for review of order dated 05.11.2007 passed by a Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2005. In view of the aforesaid order of this court, the petitioner has filed the instant civil review petition. 9. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and from the findings of the lower appellate court as well as of this court disposing of title appeal and second appeal, it is quite apparent that the proceeding of the title suit was continued under the provision of Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner, who was a defendant in the said suit and had contested it to the hilt, had full knowledge and information about the said proceeding and hence, there is no occasion to believe that he had no information or knowledge as to the manner in which the suit proceeded. 10. From the records of Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2005, it is quite apparent that although the question of maintainability was raised by the Stamp Reporter in its report dated 06.12.2005, but in spite of specific order dated 25.07.2006 passed by a Bench of this Court, the petitioner did not file any affidavit to show as to whether the suit was tried under section 14 of the Act or it was tried as a regular suit. Due to non filing of such an affidavit the court had to issue notice to the opposite party vide his order dated 30.08.2006 in maintainability matter as well as in admission matter, whereafter the opposite party appeared in the civil revision 5 and filed his counter affidavit only on the merit of the case without raising any objection with regard to the maintainability of the civil revision. 11. Under these circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioner to withdraw the civil revision, but in spite of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner at his own instance and at his own risk sought permission to withdraw the civil revision for filing a statutory appeal and accordingly, this court vide order under review dated 05.11.2007 dismissed the civil revision as withdrawn. Since the prayer was made by the petitioner at his own risk without any such objection having been raised by the opposite party this court had no occasion to consider whether the statutory appeal would be maintainable as the said question was to be decided by the court hearing the statutory appeal. Once a case is withdrawn by the petitioner knowingfull well of the entire situation at his own risk that is the end of the matter and there is no occasion for any review of such orders. 12. It may be noted in this regard that the eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of the fixed period of tenancy had continued since 1998 and even after the said suit was decreed in the year 2005, the said matter and the said decree travelled from one court to the other i.e. from civil revision to title appeal and from second appeal to review petition for about five years much to the chagrin of plaintiff-respondent and till date the said decree has not been executed. Thus the petitioner had taken 6 full advantage of the delay caused due to wrong steps taken by him which according to plaintiff-respondent were intentional. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any reason to review the said order dated 5.11.2007 passed in Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2005 nor does it find any error apparent on the face of the record in the said order nor any fresh material has been brought on record on the basis of which, this court can take any other view. 14. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)