Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the fair and decreetal orders dated 14.03.2011 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A.No.15664 of 2010 in I.A.No.10439 of 2009 in O.S.No.4463 of 1995, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. The long and short of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus: The revision petitioner herein filed the suit for bare injunction; after contest the suit was dismissed; as against which, review application was filed. After hearing both sides, the said review application was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the review application, this revision has been focussed. 4. When the matter has come up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would bring to the notice of this court that the same revision petitioner after the dismissal of the review application preferred a regular appeal as against the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.4463 of 1995. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant the revision petitioner cannot ride two horses at one and the same time. He cannot pursue his review remedy and also the appeal remedy at one and the same time. Whereupon the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat that he would prefer to prosecute the appeal rather than proceeding with the review and he seeks permission of this court to withdraw the review application itself and consequently to dismiss this revision petition to that effect. 6. From the famous treatise, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition by P.St.J.Langan in Chapter 7-Presumptions regarding jurisdiction, the following excerpts could be extracted thus: ..........."In Francis v. Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District Council, a person served with an enforcement notice under Section 23 of the 1947 Act did not avail himself of the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction given by Section 23 (4), but applied to the High Court for a declaration that the enforcement notice was invalid. It was held that he was not precluded by the statutory provisions of an appeal procedure from seeking relief in this manner." 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made endorsement seeking permission to withdraw the review itself as also the civil revision petition. It was held that he was not precluded by the statutory provisions of an appeal procedure from seeking relief in this manner." 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made endorsement seeking permission to withdraw the review itself as also the civil revision petition. This court being the High Court having plenary powers with a view to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, permit the petitioner to withdraw the review itself and accordingly, permission is granted to withdraw the same. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside so as to enable the revision petitioner to pursue his appeal remedy as per law and it is open for the respondents to raise all legal and factual pleas before the appellate forum. 8. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.