Pankaj Mithal, J— Heard Sri Siddhartha, learned counsel for the defendant revisionists. 2. The revision under Section 115 CPC is against the order dated 21.7.2012 passed by the court below in Original Suit No. 882 of 2009(Alok Mathur Vs. Smt. Seema Mathur). The court below by the impugned order has permitted the plaintiff respondent to relinquish part of the relief as claimed in the suit. 3. In the Original suit the plaintiff respondent has sought declaration to declare three sale deeds, all dated 1.8.2005 to be null and void and accordingly to cancel the same. Now by the impugned order the plaintiff respondent has been allowed to give up relief regarding cancellation of the sale deed. 4. The relinquishment of the part of relief as claimed in the plaint causes no prejudice to the defendant revisionists and at the same time do not infringes any of their rights. It is settled law that a plaintiff can at any time give up or relinquish part of the relief claimed in the suit. 5. The submission of Sri Siddhartha Verma that in the event the part of the relief aforesaid is given up, the suit would not be maintainable is a question which has to be considered by the court below at the appropriate stage. 6. The order impugned does not occasion failure of justice. The revision therefore lacks merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. _____________