Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 4th November, 2008 passed by Revenue Board, Ajmer, whereby revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 Ratan Lal was allowed and order dated 9th September, 2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Mahuwa was set aside.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, documents annexed with the writ petition and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that petitioner moved an application on 25th August, 2005 (Annex. 3) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party in the suit. Learned SDO vide its order dated 9th September, 2005 allowed the application and impleaded the petitioner as defendant in the suit, on the basis of order dated 27th September, 1999 passed by Assistant Collector, Mahuwa in Suit No. 54/99 wherein 32/245 share of petitioner Gulab and one Ram Khiladi was declared in the disputed land.

4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner's share was declared in the disputed land vide order dated 27th September, 1999, therefore, learned SDO was fully justified in passing the order dated 9th September, 2005 allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as defendant in the suit and Revenue Board committed an illegality in passing the order impugned, which is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that order passed by SDO dated 9th September, 2005 was based on earlier order dated 27th September, 1999 passed by Assistant Collector, which had already been set aside by Revenue Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 25th June, 2004 in appeal No. 5/2004, therefore, the basis for allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was not in existence on the date of passing of the order i.e. 9th September, 2005, therefore, Revenue Board rightly set aside the order passed by SDO, therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders dated 9th September, 2005, 4th November, 2008 and other orders dated 27th September, 1999 and 25th June, 2004, I find that no doubt, in the order dated 27th September, 1999, the share of petitioner was declared, but the said share or observation in the order was not found to be prima facie proper by Revenue Appellate Authority in its order dated 25th June, 2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not have been implemented as a party in the case on the basis of order dated 27th September, 1999, which was not found to be proper prima facie by Revenue Appellate Authority, which is clear from order dated 25th June, 2004 (Annex. 7).

7. Learned Revenue Board has referred both the orders and only thereafter set aside the order of SDO dated 9th September, 2005. In my view, there is no illegality or factual error in the impugned order passed by Revenue Board so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal and examine the impugned order as an appellate court. The order passed by Revenue Board cannot be said to be without jurisdiction also. It is needless to mention that if petitioner is not a party in any proceedings, then any order passed in the said proceeding will not be binding on him.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 held as under:-

"The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct error in drawing interferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297), held the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document