The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court should decide the jurisdiction issue and obtain reports from sub-ordinate authorities expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Sarin for the caveator.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 15.7.2016 by which revision was allowed, order of trail court dated 6.2.2016 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court to decide the points relating to maintainability of the suit after obtaining report from Tehsildar within a period of three months and the parties were directed to maintain status quo till 12.8.2016.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the caveator that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands inasmuch as they have filed a report of Lekhpal dated 14.9.2015 as Annexure -16 to the writ petition by making interpolation in it. The report was filed in the court on 3.10.2015 and the court has made an endorsement in the margin of the report for taking the report on record but the endorsement made by the court dated 3.10.2015 was rubbed out in order to show that report was submitted on 14.9.2015 although actually it was filed in the court on 3.10.2015.

4. I have considered the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the caveator. The petitioners filed an application in this respect before the trial court on 22.9.2015 in which he has mentioned that in view of report the issue relating to jurisdiction of revenue court to try the suit be decided. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in this application and a perusal of the counter affidavit shows that they had denied the allegation relating to Lekhpal's report as relied upon by the petitioners in the application dated 22.9.2015. Thus in substance the allegation was that although the report was filed on 3.10.2015 in the court but in collusion of Lekhpal copy was supplied to them prior to 3.10.2015. That very copy has been filed as Annexure -16 to the writ petition. Therefore allegation that petitioners have rubbed out the endorsement of Sub Divisional Officer does not appears to be correct and writ petition is not liable to be dismissed on this preliminary objection.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that revision was filed before Board of Revenue against the order dated 6.2.2016. By the order dated 6.2.2016 the trial court merely entertained the written statement of the petitioners on the cost of Rs. 200/- and directed to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the suit on 20.2.2016. The Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 6.2.2016. Thus virtually the written statement which was entertained by the trial court will not be taken into consideration while deciding the issue relating to maintainability of the suit. Further the Board of Revenue has illegally observed in the order that petitioners admitted that the trial court has fixed a date for hearing the argument on the application of the petitioner relating to maintainability of the suit but due to inadvertence the order was not transcribed. He submits that he himself appeared before Board of Revenue and have never made any such admission. The order of Board of Revenue is incorrect. The Board of Revenue has directed the trial court to obtain a report from Tehsildar to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the suit. Although the Tehsildar has already submitted the report dated 14.9.2015. He submits that there was no issue relating to interim order before the Board of Revenue. Although this matter came up before this Court in Matter under Article 227 No. 3621 of 2016 and this Court by order dated 20.5.2016 declined to grant any interim order. However , Board of Revenue has superseded the order of this Court and has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thus the order of Board of Revenue is illegal and liable to be set aside.

6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records.

7. It is not denied that the petitioners filed an application before the trial court on 22.9.20