1 2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7808/2009. Babu Lal Vs. B.O.R., Ajmer & Ors. Date of Order : 7th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. C.R. Jakhar, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court does not find even a wee bit of justification to entertain this writ petition. It appears from the material placed on record that the revenue suit bearing number 51/1996, as filed by the respondent No.4 came to be dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur by the order dated 15.10.1996 (Annex.3) after finding that the plaintiff has failed to implead the recorded khatedar of the land in question a party to the suit; and after holding that such recorded khatedar, from whom the defendant allegedly purchased the land in question, being a necessary party, the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). An 2 application was, however, moved on behalf of the plaintiff seeking review of the order so passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court proceeded to allow the review application bearing number 76/1996 by its order dated 17.09.1997 (Annex.6) without stating any reason and merely observing that there being error in the order dated 15.10.1996, the same was required to be recalled. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing number 77/1997 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur ('the RAA’). The learned RAA partly allowed the appeal so preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 16.03.1999 (Annex.7) while observing that the impugned order dated 17.09.1997 was not carrying any discussion nor contained any reason for allowing the review application; and, while setting the order dated 17.09.1997 aside, remanded the matter to the subordinate Court for decision of the review application on merits with a reasoned order after hearing the parties. The petitioner was not satisfied even with the order so passed by the learned RAA and preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, being Revision Petition No. 11332/1999. The learned Member of the Board, however, rejected the revision petition by the impugned order dated 09.07.2008 (Annex.8) with the observations that there was 3 nothing of jurisdictional error in the order passed by the RAA so as to call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Seeking to challenge the orders dated 16.03.1999 and 09.07.2008 as passed respectively by the RAA and by the Board, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the RAA has failed to exercise properly the jurisdiction vested in him and has unnecessarily remanded the matter to the Trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that when the entire material was available on record, there was no reason that the RAA did not decide the appeal on merits and instead remanded the matter to the subordinate Court. According to the learned counsel, the RAA and the Board have failed to consider the principles referable to Order XLI Rule 33 CPC and have failed to consider that there was no occasion for the appellate authority to remand the matter to the Trial Court; and the appellate authority itself ought to have decided the matter on merits. The learned counsel also pointed out that the RAA proceeded to pass the impugned order of remand even though nobody chose to appear for the plaintiff-respondent. The learned counsel submitted that in the overall circumstances, the appeal preferred by the petitioner ought to have been allowed for there was no ground to review the order dated 4 15.10.1996. The submissions do not make out any case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The order as passed by the RAA on 16.03.1999 cannot be said to be an order made without jurisdiction nor could it be said that the appellate authority has acted illegally or with any irregularity. When the impugned order dated 17.09.1997 (Annex.6) was found to be a non-speaking one; and no reason had been stated by the Trial Court for allowing the review application, in the given circumstances, the appellate authority was perfectly justified in setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the subordinate Court. The submission as made by the learned counsel that the appellate authority ought to have decided the matter on merits cannot be accepted looking to the nature of the order dated 17.09.1997; and the order of remand as passed in this case cannot be said to be unnecessary or unjustified. The absence of the plaintiff-respondent at the time of decision of the appeal has hardly any bearing on the order impugned. Moreover, the Board of Revenue has considered the matter in its revisional jurisdiction and has found nothing of illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the RAA so as to warrant interference. 5 Looking to the nature of the orders aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason or circumstance wherefor the impugned orders could be said to be suffering from any such jurisdictional error that could be leading to failure of justice. With the order of remand, the matter would be required to be considered and decided on merits by the learned Trial Court. There cannot be said to be any failure of justice if the review application is decided on its merits. The writ petition is bereft of substance and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//