Judicial orders passed without notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party, and failing to decide upon mandatory procedural applications such as limitation condonation, are contrary to the principles of natural justice and constitute an abuse of process.

ORDER

1. Present writ petition is filed challenging legality, validity, and propriety of order dated 20.04.2026 passed by learned Board of Revenue ("BoR") in a revision petition preferred by Respondent No. 1. By impugned order, learned BoR, at admission stage itself and without issuing notice to respondents or first adjudicating application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, proceeded to allow revision petition in favour of Respondent No. 1. Consequently, learned BoR quashed and set aside order dated 17.10.2025, which was under challenge in the revision petition, and further directed learned Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as party respondent and to decide application for injunction filed along with suit within a period of one month.

2. Explaining factual background of case, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, submitted that petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction before learned Additional Collector, Jayal. In said suit, Respondent No. 1 (revisionist before learned Board of Revenue) was not impleaded as a party respondent. Along with suit, petitioner also filed an application under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking temporary injunction. Although Respondent No. 1 had filed a caveat in the proceedings, no application seeking impleadment as party to the suit or injunction proceedings was filed on his behalf before learned Trial Court.

2.1 Learned Additional Collector, Jayal, vide order dated 17.10.2025, granted ad interim relief in favour of petitioner and directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to suit property, both in terms of its physical status and revenue records. Learned Trial Court further restrained defendants from alienating, transferring, or sell to any party qua the property in question during pendency of proceedings.

2.2 Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that proceedings before learned Trial Court are still pending and, till date, no application seeking impleadment has been filed by Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that petitioner subsequently came to know that Respondent No. 1 preferred a revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, which was decided ex parte. By impugned order, learned BoR set aside ad interim order dated 17.10.2025 passed by learned Trial Court and further directed learned Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as party respondent, despite the fact that no application seeking such impleadment had been filed or was pending consideration before learned Trial Court.

2.3 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that, after obtaining certified copy of proceedings of revision petition, petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging impugned order dated 20.04.2026. It is stated that, along with revision petition, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay was also filed; however, learned Board of Revenue proceeded to decide revision petition at admission stage itself without issuing notice to respondents and without first adjudicating said application under Limitation Act.

2.4 Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that revision petition itself was not maintainable as it was directed against an ad interim order passed by learned Trial Court. It is submitted that, in view of Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and settled legal position, revision against an ad interim / interlocutory order is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 15.03.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil W