// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10200/2008 Ramcharan S/o Shri Parsadi and Others Versus The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others Date of Order ::: 18.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Dr. Swati Bhati with Shri Gajendra Singh Rathore and Shri Sandeep K. Sharma, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction along-with an application for temporary injunction before the S.D.O., Gangapurcity. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed vide order dated 25th August, 2008. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was taken on 26th August, 2008. The respondents had filed caveat but they were not present, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority issued notice to the respondents and passed an order of status-quo. Being aggrieved with the // 2 // same, the defendant-respondents preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board vide its order dated 29th August, 2008, while admitting the revision petition, issued notice to opposite party and stayed the operation of the order passed by the Revenue appellate Authority. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 29th August, 2008 passed by the Revenue Board, the plaintiff-petitioners have preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the revision petition, preferred by the opposite-party, was not maintainable before the Revenue Board and it committed an illegality in admitting the same and staying the operation of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside by this Court. I have examined the impugned order passed by the Revenue Board in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and I find that the impugned order is only an ex-parte interim order passed by the Revenue Board. Instead of approaching this court, the petitioners ought to have moved an application before the Revenue Board itself for recalling the order dated 29th August, 2008 in // 3 // case the revision petition was not maintainable before the Revenue Board against the order passed by the Revenue appellate Authority and also to make a prayer to vacate the ex-parte interim stay order. The present writ petition, which is directed against the ex-parte interim stay order, is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file a proper application before the Revenue Board. In case such an application is filed by the petitioners, the Revenue Board is directed to decide the same at the earliest. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//