IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 3795 of 2004 UDA @ UDAILAL & ANR V/S BOARD OF REVEVUE RAJ.,AJMER & ORS Mr. SAJJAN SINGH, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAJAT DAVE, for the respondent Date of Order : 20.9.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This writ petition has been filed, likewise another writ No.3271/04 has also been filed, against the common impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated 12.2.2004, deciding two revisions No.59/04 and 104/02. Revision No.59/02 was filed against the order of trial Court dated 16.4.2002, while Revision No.104/02 has been filed against the order of the trial Court dated 6.8.2002. By order dated 16.4.2002, the application under Order 14 Rule 5 had been dismissed, while by order dated 6.8.2002 application of the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 10 had been dismissed. The learned Board of Revenue had allowed both the revisions, has recast the issues, and directed the trial Court to summon the record, and give opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence. The two orders dated 16.4.2002 and 6.8.2002 had been filed in both the writ petitions as Annexure-2 and Annexure-1 respectively. Writ No.3271/04 seeks to challenge the order relating to the application under Order 14 Rule 5. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, that as a matter of fact, both the writ petitions seek to challenge the order passed on the application under Order 14 Rule 5, and therefore, this writ No.3795/04 is required to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon pointed out, that in para-8, a correction has been made in the mention of “Order 14 Rule 5”. I have considered the submissions. It is a different story, that it does not appear from the order- sheets, as to when and how this correction was made, and it is not clear, as to whether such correction could be made without the express permission of the Court, passed in the order-sheet. Be that as it may, the fact then does remain, 2 that a look at the prayer clause in the writ petition shows, that the main relief claimed is in relief No.1, seeking to set aside the order dated 12.2.2004, Annexure-7, and restoration of the order dated 16.4.2002 Annexure-2, and does not seek restoration of the order dated 6.8.2002 being Annexure-1. In that view of the matter, this writ clearly seeks to claim the relief of restoration of the order of the trial Court deciding the application under Order 14 Rule 5 only. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed, in view of the fact, that other writ petition No.3271/04, has already been filed for the same relief, and which has been admitted today itself. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/ 3