CW 5114/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5114//2010 Revta Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5171/2010 Revta Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. Date Of Order :: 18/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Saransh Saini, for petitioner. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for respondent-. Both the petitions since involve common question, hence were heard together and are being disposed of by the present order. In both these petitions the order dt.22.3.2010 (Ann.1) passed by the Board of Revenue on the application filed by the non- petitioner u/s.151 CPC has been assailed whereby the said application was allowed and the parties concerned were directed to maintain status-quo in regard to the property in dispute, and not to alienate or create any third party interest and further not to raise any kaccha or pakka construction, till further orders. Respondent-plaintiff filed a revenue suit somewhere in December,2007 before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector for declaration of Khatedari rights, correction of entries and permanent injunction u/s. 88, 89 & 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy CW 5114/10 (2) Act,1955. Pending suit application was filed by the petitioner u/O.1 R.10 CPC which was allowed and the petitioner was impleaded as party respondent in the pending revenue suit. It appears that transferee expired during pendency of proceedings, as such application ought to have been filed U/O.22 R.4 CPC for taking his legal heirs on record, however application was filed U/O. 6 R.17 CPC which appears to be erroneous and this application was contested by the present petitioner with the plea that so far transferee is concerned the suit stands abated. Taking note of the submissions made, the learned Assistant Collector allowed the application and the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent (transferee) were taken on record. Against the said order passed by the Assistant Collector, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It will be relevant to mention here that in reference to an application filed by respondent-plaintiff u/s.212 of the Tenancy Act, the present petitioner in its reply has given undertaking that he will not alienate or create any third party interest in the property in question, but it appears that pending proceedings before the revisional authority i.e. Board of Revenue, the CW 5114/10 (3) petitioner/the legal heirs of the transferee started raising construction over the disputed property. At this stage, the respondent- plaintiff filed an application u/s.151 CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner and the legal heirs of the transferee from raising any construction over the disputed property. The present petitioner filed reply to the application and it was averred in para 1 that they are not raising any kacha or pakka construction over the disputed land and it is being utilized only for agricultural purposes. Taking note of the submissions made and particularly of the averments made by the petitioner in reply to the application filed u/s. 151 CPC, the learned Board of Revenue directed the parties to maintain status-quo restraining them not to alienate or create any third party interest in the property in question, at the same time, it was further observed that they will not raise any kacha or pakka construction over the disputed property, against which the present petition has been preferred. Counsel for petitioner submits that no reasons have been assigned and it has not been disclosed that what was the prima facie justification available for passing the interim order by the Board of Revenue CW 5114/10 (4) dt.22.3.2010 and it will continue till disposal of the revision petition, such an interim order is causing prejudice to the petitioner. Counsel for petitioner further submits that the Board while passing interim order observed that matter has not been examined on merit which ought to have been examined while passing the order impugned and in these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue requires interference by this Court. The submissions made are wholly without substance for the reason that revision petition was preferred by the present petitioner against the order being passed on the application taking legal heirs of the transferee on record and so far as prayer for interim relief and raising of kaccha or pakka construction over the disputed property is concerned, the petitioner himself in para 1 of the reply to the application filed u/s.151 CPC averred that he is not raising any construction kaccha or pakka as the case may be. Apart from it, the learned Board of Revenue after examining the material passed the interim order and was not supposed to observe on merits of the matter, since it may prejudice to the case of either party while CW 5114/10 (5) passing of the interim order, impugned herein. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Board of Revenue taking into consideration the material on record passed the interim order impugned herein, which does not call for interference. Consequently, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.5 5114cw10May18Fnl.doc