HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.2537 of 2009 PETITIONER/: (Defendant No.4) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiff) B.M. Khan, S/o Bahaddar Khan, Aged about 70 years, R/o Kelabadi, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (CG) Versus 1) Smt. Jainab Be @ Matiya Bai, Aged about 54 years, Wd/o Mohd. Gulam, R/o Near Slater House.Sanjay Nagar, Raipur (CG) 2 a) Sultana Begum, Aged about 57 years, Wd/o Late Babu Miyan, R/o Nayapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 b) Firoz Khan S/o Late Babu Miyan, Aged about 36 years R/o Nayapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2 c) Fatima Begum D/o Babu Miya Noor Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o Nayapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2 d) Nssima Begum W/o Kayyumm Ali D/o Babu Maiyari Noor Khan, Aged about 34 years, R/c Nayapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG; 3) Saleem Khan S/o Ahmed Khan, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kelabadi, Durg, Tahsil &Distt. Durg(C.G.) 4) Ku. Amina, Aged about 12 years, D/o Late Dadu Miyan, trirough Wali Ahmed Khan 5) Ku. Ashiya, Aged about 13 years, D/o Late Dadu Miyan, through Wali Ahmed Khan Respondent No.4 & 5, through theirNatural Guardian/Ahmed Khan, Defendant No.2, R/o Kelabadi Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 6) Aziz Khan, S/o Late Bahaddar Khan, Aged about 63 years, R/o Kasaridih, Near House of Sheikh Saleem, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 7 a) Mannakal Ali S/o Mumtaj Nisha, Aged about 50 years, R/o Kamasipara, Raipur (C.G.) 7 b) Mukhak Ali S/o Mumta] Nisha, Aged about 48years, R/o Kamasipara, Raipur (CG) 7 c) Ishtitak Ali S/o Mumtaj Nisha, Aged about 45 years, R/o Kamasipara, Raipur (CG) 8) Smt. Sugara Be, D/o Late Bahaddar Khan, Aged about 66 years, R/o Raja Talab, Raipur (CG) Respondent No.2 to 8 are respondents/defendants {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.B. Gupta, counsel for respondents No.1, 4 & 5. None present for other respondents. No representation is made. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble IWr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER . (7-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 5-2-2009 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Execution Case No.39-A/1994 whereby the application for execution filed on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor has been dismissed. 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to file revision which is maintainable under Section 115 ofthe Code ofdvil Procedure, 1908. 3. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. No order as to costs. 4. Certified copy of the order impugned be returned to counsel for the petitioner on his submitting the duly attested Photostat copy of the same. Soma Sd/- T.P Sharma Judge ^.