The Board of Revenue has the power to set aside the judgment and decree if it finds that the review petition was wrongly dismissed by the lower court.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, revision petition filed by the respondent No.2-Smt.Sarati (deceased) has been allowed and order of Sub- Divisional Officer dated 19.04.1999, rejecting the review petition filed by the respondent, has been set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially judgment and decree dated 09.08.1994 was passed, whereby, suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was decreed on the basis of compromise, said to be entered into between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and decree dated 09.08.1994 was put to challenge, by filing a review petition, before the SDO, on an application being filed by respondent No.2-Sarati (deceased) & No.15-Badami.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the review application filed by the respondents-Sarati and Badami, was dismissed by SDO on 19.04.1999, by holding that only clerical mistake could have been corrected in the review petition and there was no error apparent on the face of record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after rejection of review petition, the respondent-Sarati filed a Revision Petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, against the order of SDO.

6. Learned counsel submitted that by the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, not only the order dated 19.04.1999 has been set aside but also the judgment and decree dated 09.08.1994 has been set aside and further, direction has been given to SDO to afford opportunity of hearing to both the parties to decide the suit afresh.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the remedy availed by the respondent of filing a revision petition, was not permissible in law and if the respondent was aggrieved against the judgment and decree and order of rejecting the review application, proper remedy was to file an appeal before the Appellate Forum.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the Revisional Court under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, could not have questioned the validity of judgment and decree, as it was passed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.M.M. Ranjan appearing for the respondents submitted that an application was filed for reviewing the order passed by the SDO Court and same resulting into a dismissal of the said application, then, the only remedy available to the respondents, was of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 7 CPC, if an order of rejecting the review application is filed, against such order, appeal is not maintainable.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue while exercising the power on hearing the revision petition, has ample power of not only setting aside the order of rejecting the review application but the judgment and decree passed by the Court, can also be set aside.

12. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the review application if results into dismissal and later on, if the competent Court examines the same and reasons of rejecting the review application are not found legal, the order passed in the judgment and decree by any Court, also necessarily requires to be set aside.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

14. This Court, on bare reading of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC, finds that if an order has been passed rejecting the application of review, such order is not appealable. This Court further finds that if application filed for review of the order is allowed, the same can result into filing of appeal.

15. This Court had put a specific question to counsel appearing for the petitioner, as whether, the order of rejecting the review application is appealable or not, learned counsel submitted that the order by which revi