ORDER :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.10.2021, passed by the learned members of the Board of Revenue in an appeal filed by the petitioners being appeal No. 3119/2021 of Jalore.

2. The facts narrated in brief are that the legal representatives of petitioner Pancharam instituted a suit for declaration that he be declared successor/owner of the land belonging to Bhura S/o Hamira situated in Khasra No. 57 of village Vatera, Tehsil Jaswantpura, District Jalore. The said suit was decreed by Additional Collector, Bhinmal (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') vide order dated 11.03.2010.

3. The respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of Bhura. The appeal filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.06.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to hear all the parties, including the appellants therein, who claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of Bhura.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2021, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the present petitioners preferred second appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Appeal/T.A./2021/3119/Jalore.

5. The members of the Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, while holding that the Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified in accepting the appeal, without first considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While allowing the appeal, the members of the Board however remanded the case to the trial Court.

6. Mr. Teja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners oppugning the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.10.2021 argued that the members of the Board of Revenue were though justified in setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 30.06.2021, in as much as, the Revenue Appellate Authority had not considered the delay in filing the appeal, which was a substantial delay of 9 years, but not in remanding the case to the trial Court. He argued that the matter ought to have been sent back to Revenue Appellate Authority.

7. It was argued that on account of the matter being remanded back to the trial Court, petitioners' documents and contentions, which were raised before the Revenue Appellate Authority, by way of an application under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC, would remain unattended/unheard.

8. Heard.

9. Once the members of Board of Revenue have found that the Revenue Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing the appeal without considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ideally the matter should have been sent back to the Revenue Appellate Authority only. But as per the order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 30.06.2021, the matter was ordered to be heard by the trial Court, as respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who claim themselves to be the legal heirs of Bhura, were not heard.

10. However, in view of series of judgments of the Supreme Court which rule that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not supposed to correct all the minor errors of law committed by the Sub-ordinate Courts, interference by this Court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Substantial justice has been done, as all the parties have been asked to approach the trial Court for adjudication and assertion of their rights.

11. Writ petition, is thus, dismissed.

12. Needless to say that the petitioners and the respondents shall be free to take all permissible pleas and place the required documents in their favour.

13. Stay application is also dismissed.