IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.142 of 2025 Decided on: 03.11.2025 Radha Rani ….Petitioner Versus Rajeev Aggarwal ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Deepak Bhasin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under law, if any. 2. Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, learned counsel representing the respondent-decree holder, has made a submission that no liberty should be reserved in favour of the petitioner keeping in view the fact that the eviction order was passed in the year 2011 and till date it has not been executed. 3. The prayer, as made by the petitioner, is innocuous. Needless to say that the remedy, if any, available to petitioner in law can neither be extended nor curtailed by this Court. 2 4. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed for along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge November 03, 2025 (vt)