The court's decision was based on the principle that the nature of the order being interlocutory, and the judgments not suffering from any factual or legal error apparent from the face of the record, the Board had not committed any error in dismissing the revision petition and review petition.

ORDER :

Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

1. This writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgments dated 14.02.2019 and dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity "the Board") whereby, the review petition as well as the revision petition respectively preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Collector, Kotputli, District Jaipur, have been dismissed.

2. Assailing the orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was incumbent upon the learned Appellate Court to have decided their application filed under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC before proceeding further in the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the Board has erred in dismissing their revision petition as well as review petition without considering aforesaid aspect and hence, the judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

4. The learned First Appellate Court has, vide its order dated 31.08.2016, directed hearing of application preferred by the petitioners as well as appeal preferred by the respondents, simultaneously. Since, nature of the order was interlocutory, the Board dismissed the revision petition preferred by petitioners as not maintainable. The review petition has also been dismissed as the judgment dated 06.08.2018, did not suffer from any factual or legal error apparent from the face of record. The orders do not suffer from any illegality. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the learned Appellate Court to have decided their application first, before proceeding with the appeal, cannot be countenanced in view of averments made therein. The only averment in the application is that the appeal, without impleading all the legal heirs of deceased parties therein, was not maintainable. Undisputedly, such averment, being disputed question of fact, does not fall within the four corners of the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this Court that it not being a pure question of law, learned Appellate Court was under an obligation to decide the same before proceeding with hearing of the appeal. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Board has committed no error in dismissing the revision petition as well as the review petition.

5. This writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly.