Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

(2). Looking to the provisions of law of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, 1 am of the opinion that the learned Board of Revenue was right in passing the order dated 28.9.94 because the relief claimed in the suit before the Board of Revenue was under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act whereas; the previous suit was only under Section 188 of the Act. The decision in the previous suit cannot act as a res judicata against the respondents because they are free even after that to file suit for declaration at any time. Therefore, issues in both the suits were not substantially the same and thus, the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the trial Court has committed a material irregularity in deciding the issue No. 5 against the respondents and the Board accepted the revision filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 Moorti Mandir Shri Gangaji Maharaj, set aside the order dated 13.12.89 of the Assistant Collector and parties were directed to appear before the trial court.

Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such with no orders as to cost.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document