IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2116 of 2009 1. Parmeshwar Singh 2. Chandrama Singh Both son of late Gopal Singh, resident of village Lohara, P.O. Badalu Tola, P.S. Chapra Muffasil, District Saran at Chapra Plaintiffs…… Petitioners Versus Kedar Singh, son of late Kapildeo Singh, resident of village – Lohara, P.O. Badalu Tola, P.S. Chapra Muffasil, District Saran at Chapra ….. Defendant / opposite party For the Petitioners : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Advocate For the opposite party : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate 5 24.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. I.A. No. 5589 of 2011 has been filed for condoning the delay of 139 days in preferring this application. For the reasons mentioned in this application, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause from preferring this petition within time. As a result, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing of this application is hereby condoned. Now I proceed to consider M.J.C. No. 2116 of 2 2009. After some argument, Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the Civil Revision No. 1130 of 2006, having been filed against the order dated 31.5.2006 passed in Title Suit No. 289 of 2002 by the Sub Judge I, Chapra rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs – petitioners for amendment in plaint, which is interlocutory in nature, would 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 well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Durga Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar Poddar, reported in 2010(2) PLJR 954, and as such no useful purpose would be served if this application is allowed and the civil revision is restored. Thus, he wants to withdraw this application to file a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of challenging the impugned order. 3 Learned counsel appearing for opposite party does not raise any objection. As a result this application is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioners. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)