1. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.8.98 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. 223/1996.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Giarassa filed a revenue suit under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 5 to 13 and the brother of petitioner in the Court of Up-Zila Collector, Rajgarh in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 135, measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswa and Khasra No. 137, measuring 1 Bigha 18 Biswa in village Mallana, Tehsil, Rajgarh.

3. One Shri Laxman-father of respondent No. 7 Jagdish, also filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner and others on 7.8.75 by which he claimed that he may be declared as Khatedar tenant of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 137 and another suit No. 94/75 was also filed by Laxman against Gangadhar (brother of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No.2) for permanent injunction in which also Laxman had claimed that he is recorded tenant of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 137.

4. In revenue suit No. 14/81, three issues were framed in Revenue suits No. 40/75 and 94/75, 5 issues were framed. All these three revenue suits vide order dated 25.2.82 were consolidated and were heard together and decided by the common judgment dated 27.12.90 by the Deputy' Collector Rajgarh, Alwar. The Deputy Collector Rajgarh decreed the suit filed by the petitioner Giarassa and the suit filed by the petitioner Giarassa and the suit No. 40/75 and 94/75 filed by Laxman, father of respondent No. 7 were dismissed.

5. Against the judgment and decree dated 27.12.90 the respondents No. 5 to 13 filed an Appeal go. 18/91 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar. The Revenue Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 30.8.96 and maintained the judgment and decree dated 27.12.90 passed by Deputy Collector, Rajgarh.

6. The judgment and decree dated 27.12.90 passed by Deputy Collector, Rajgarh and order dated 30.8.96 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Alwar has been challenged by respondent No. 5 to 13 by second appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 224 of the Act of 1955. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the Courts below did not decide the case by recording findings on each issue separately nor the findings on each issues were made basis for judgment and as such the Board of Revenue quashed and set aside the judgment dated 27.12.90 and 30.8.96 and remanded the case back to the Deputy Collector, Rajgarh to decide the matter afresh vide its judgment dated 20.8.98.

7. The judgment of Board of Revenue dated 20.8.98 has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the Board of Revenue has failed to consider that the Rule 24ORDER41 of Code of Civil Procedure prohibits remand of a case to lower Court where the evidence on record is sufficient for disposal of the case and appellate Court may determine case finally.

8. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.K. Mehrishi placed reliance on the judgment reported in (1) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1125;, (2) 1999(3) SCC 161 Head Note B, (3) 1997 (2) RLR 512 and (4) 1983 RLR 438.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Board of Revenue has not rightly appreciated the judgments passed by the Courts below and arrived at wrong conclusion that the Courts below have not decided the issues in suit No. 40/75 and 94/75 whereas the Courts below in their judgments have clearly observed that since the issues framed in Suit No. 40/75 and 94/75 filed by the petitioner Giarassa are the same, same were decided jointly after analysing the evidence. These issues cover the whole controversy of the present case. Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the suit filed by the petitioner Giarassa deserves to be decreed and dismissed the suit No. 40/75 and 94/75 filed by the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petit