Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010186282025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/349/2025 SAHAR ALI AND ORS SON OF LATE MOFIZUDDIN R/O VILL- KALGACHIA P.O. SONKUCHI, P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781314 2: CHAMPA KHATUN (SINCE DECEASED) BY HER LEGAL HEIRS- 2.1: SONOWAR HUSSAIN S/O BADSHA MIAH AND LATE CHAMPA KHATUN R/O VILL- KALGACHIA P.O. SONKUCHI P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781314 2.2: ASHRAFUL HUSSAIN S/O BADSHA MIAH AND LATE CHAMPA KHATUN R/O VILL- KALGACHIA P.O. SONKUCHI P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781314 2.3: MONOWAR HUSSAIN S/O BADSHA MIAH AND LATE CHAMPA KHATUN R/O VILL- KALGACHIA P.O. SONKUCHI Page No.# 2/3 P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78131 VERSUS RUHUL AMIN KHAN AND AND ANR S/OLATE EYASIN KHAN R/O VILL- SARIATPUR P.S. KALGACHIA PIN-7813 DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM 2:TABUIL HUSSAIN KHAN S/OLATE EYASIN KHAN R/O VILL- SARIATPUR P.S. KALGACHIA PIN-7813 DIST. BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G U AHMED, MS S. MEHJABIN Advocate for the Respondent : R MANDAL, MS. N PODDAR,S K PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 31.03.2026 Heard Mr. G.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has the instruction to withdraw this petition. He also submits that the petitioners have already preferred one regular first appeal, along with a petition for condonation of delay and the said proceedings are pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta. And accordingly, he has contended to allow him to withdraw this civil revision petition. Page No.# 3/3 Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, he is permitted to withdraw this petition, subject however payment of a cost of Rs.1,000/-, which shall be deposited before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Barpeta, within a period of one week from today. The cost is imposed, as this revision petition is preferred when the provision for appeal is provided and also being availed. The petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, not impugning any order, but impugning the Execution Proceeding and enjoying a stay of the same, which clearly demonstrated to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE