CWP 3510/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.3510/2010 Mangali Vs. Board of Revenue & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for petitioner. Instant petition is directed against the order dated 10/12/2009 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the matter has been remanded to the SDO, Lalsot to examine the dispute on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. The petitioner, as alleged in the petition, is daughter of late Gopal who died on 05/03/2002. One Kana Ram filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the land in question situated in village-Deedwana, Tehsil-Lalsot impleading father of the petitioner Gopal as defendant No.8 to the suit. Since her father failed to appear despite service, as per order sheets, of which mention has been made in Para No. 3 of the writ petition, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against her father (defendant No.8-Gopal) on 28/04/1992 and after hearing the plaintiff and the contesting respondents, the suit was decreed on 15/06/1995. After seven years of her fathers' death, the petitioner moved an application as legal representation of late Gopal under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the alleged ex-parte CWP 3510/2010 [2] decree vide order dt.25/05/2009 against which the revision petition was filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue. Taking note of the material on record that proper opportunity was not afforded to the appellant, the learned Board of Revenue, considered it appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned trial Judge to consider it on merits vide order dated 10/12/2009 and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Judge on 11/01/2010. Counsel submits that while passing the order impugned, reasons have not been recorded by the learned Board of Revenue. In the opinion of this Court, the submission made is without merit for the reasons that the learned Board of Revenue has taken note of the earlier proceedings which took place and so also the fact that the application itself was filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after almost seven years. Considering the material on record that the suit was decreed way back on 15/06/1995 and her father died on 05/03/2002 and still the decree dt. 15/06/1995 was set aside without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing vide order dated 25/05/2009. After going through the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 10/12/2009, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Board of Revenue in remitting the matter to the CWP 3510/2010 [3] learned trial Judge, which may call for interference. The writ petition has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-3510-CW-2010-final.doc