Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 20.11.2014 (Annex.3) passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Chittorgarh and judgment dated 6.10.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer ('BOR'), whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.11.2014 has been rejected.

2. The respondent-Ambalal instituted proceedings under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') before the Tehsildar Kapasan, District Chittorgarh seeking ejectment of the petitioners alleging them to be trespassers on the land and as Ambalal being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste category.

3. When the matter came up before the Tehsildar, Kapasan, the Tehsildar on noticing that the proceedings being Case No.241/2008 between the parties were pending before the SDO, Kapasan and on a prayer made by the petitioners for staying the proceedings on account of pendency of the proceedings before the SDO, by order dated 27.8.2013, stayed further proceedings in the application under Section 183-B of the Act.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-Ambalal filed appeal before the Additional District Collector. The Additional District Collector after hearing the parties by his order dated 20.11.2014 on coming to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 183-B of the Act being summary in nature, the proceedings cannot be stayed under Section 10 CPC on account of pendency of another proceedings and consequently, allowed the appeal.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision petition before the BOR. The BOR by its judgment dated 6.10.2015, upheld the order passed by the Additional District Collector for similar reasons and dismissed the revision petition.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Additional District Collector and the BOR committed error in setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar, Kapasan, whereby the proceedings on application filed by the respondent under Section 183-B of the Act were stayed. It was submitted that regular proceedings initiated by the respondent are pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction and to initiate the proceedings for the similar relief cannot be permitted to be continued. It was submitted that merely because the procedure provided for proceedings under Section 183-B of the Act is summary cannot effect the applicability of provisions of Section 10 CPC and the proceedings are liable to be stayed.

7. It was emphasis that if during the pendency of the earlier regular suit, the petitioners are evicted by way of summary procedure, the pending proceedings would be rendered meaningless and therefore, on that account also, the orders impugned deserve to be set-aside.

8. Vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of Section 10 CPC are essentially not applicable to the case in hand, inasmuch as, the said provision is applicable in case of trial of suits whereas the present proceedings are not only summary but by their very nature are applications only and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 CPC cannot be applied.

9. It was submitted that the Tehsildar without there being any application under Section 10 CPC on his own merely on noticing the pendency of proceedings has stayed the present proceedings which is against the purport and the intention of the summary procedure prescribed in the Act; the petitioners have not instituted any proceedings and the proceedings has been instituted by the respondent only and therefore also, the petitioners cannot claim the stay of proceedings.

10. Reliance was placed on Indian bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. : (1998) 5 SCC 69.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. It is not in dispute th