JUDGMENT :

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 5 challenging the order dt. 11.09.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby revision petition of the petitioner against the order dt. 17.01.2019 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, has been dismissed.

2. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. submitted that the SDO-I, Jaipur vide its order dt. 05.08.2016 decided the temporary injunction application filed under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Counsel submitted that the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner- company and as such the petitioner-company had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (in short "RAA") and the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dt. 17.01.2019 by the RAA and the delay in filing appeal was not condoned while deciding the application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Learned Sr. Adv. submitted that the petitioner-company had filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue on 08.07.2019 admitted the revision petition for hearing and also found that the delay was properly explained by the petitioner-company while filing the appeal before the RAA against the order of the SDO-I, Jaipur dt. 05.08.2016.

4. Learned Sr. Adv. for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue vide impugned order dt 11.09.2019 has taken a U-Turn and has recorded finding that the delay in filing appeal before the RAA was not satisfactorily explained and as such the order of the RAA, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, has been maintained.

5. Learned Sr. Adv. for the petitioner-company submitted that the ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner- company on the same day i.e. 05.08.2016 in the main suit and on an application filed under Order 9 Rule 7, the SDO-I, Jaipur allowed the said application vide its order dt. 20.08.2019. Learned Sr. Adv. for the petitioner submitted that the order of setting aside the ex-parte proceedings were challenged before the Board of Revenue by the respondents and the revision petition of the respondents has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 23.09.2019 and order of the SDO of setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, have been maintained.

6. Learned Sr. Adv. for the petitioner-company submitted that once the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner-company, were set aside as necessarily corollary all proceedings are revived and the petitioner-company has been able to prove satisfactorily the delay, which was alleged for filing either restoration application or for hearing on the temporary injunction, which was granted in absence of the petitioner-company.

7. Learned Sr. Adv. for the petitioner-company also submitted that one member of the Board of Revenue had considered the issue of delay while admitting the revision petition vide its order dt. 08.07.2019 and as such the Board of Revenue-another member while hearing the revision petition could not have taken a different view of rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner-company, on the ground of delay not being properly explained.

8. Learned Sr. Adv. for the petitioner-company submitted that the Board of Revenue or its members has to function by maintaining the judicial discipline and further if two inconsistent orders are passed on same facts by different members, the same may lead to very anomalous situation and the parties would not be able to get justice as per law.

9. Learned Sr. Adv. further submitted that steps which were taken to effect service on the petitioner-company in the suit as well as in the temporary injunction application, was not proper procedure, as no efforts were made to effect service on the petitioner-company by personal mode and in a very unusual manner, the notices were found to be served by way of substituted service by publication of the news items in a local newspaper which had no vide circulation.

10. Learned