JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No.997/2023 as also the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by opposite party No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Amethi, District-Amethi in Mutation Case No.T2021047101966.

3. Based upon the pleadings and material available on record, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide impugned order dated 25.03.2023, the final order dated 31.01.2023 passed in the mutation case was recalled by the opposite party No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Amethi, District-Amethi, though, he was not having jurisdiction as he has no power to recall or review the final order. He further submitted that the petitioners, being aggrieved, approached the opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow by means of revision registered as Case No.997 of 2023, Computerized Case No.R2023047100997, (Qumar Jahan and Others) filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code of 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), which was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2023 on the ground that the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under Section 207 of the Code of 2006, whereas the appeal would not lie against the order dated 25.03.2023 and as such, the impugned order(s) dated 25.04.2023 and 23.03.2023 are liable to be interfered with. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed on 11.07.2022 in the case of Nanda Dulal Pradhan and another vs Dibakar Pradhan and another; reported in 2023 (158) RD 452.

4. Considered the aforesaid including the final order dated 31.01.2023 passed in the 'Mutation Case' and perused the record.

5. Upon due consideration, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the instant case is that as to "Whether an 'order' passed on an application for setting aside an 'order' (ex-parte or by default or treating it to be ex-parte) passed in 'Mutation Case' would be appellable".

6. In the context, it would be appropriate to refer Section(s) 207 and 209 of the Code of 2006, which on reproduction reads as under:-

"Section 207. First appeal.-(1) Any party aggrieved by a final order or decree passed in any suit, application or proceeding specified in Column 2 of the Third Schedule, may prefer a first appeal to the Court or officer specified against it in Column 5, where such order or decree was passed by a Court or officer specified against it in Column 3 thereof.

(2) A first appeal shall also lie against an order of the nature specified -

(a) in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; or

(b) in Section 104 of the said Code; or

(c) in Order XLIII Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the said Code.

(3) The period of limitation for filing a first appeal under this section shall be thirty days from the date of the order or decree appealed against."

"Section 209. Bar against certain appeals.-Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 207 and 208, no appeal shall lie against any order or decree-

(a) made under Chapter XI of this Code;

(b) granting or rejecting an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963;

(c) rejecting an application for revision;

(d) granting or rejecting an application for stay;

(e) remanding the case to any subordinate Court;

(f) where such order or decree is of an interim nature;

(g) passed by Court or officer with the consent of parties; or

(h) where has been passed ex-parte or by default:

Provided that any party aggrieved by order passed ex-parte or by default, may move application for setting aside such order within a period of thirty days from the date of the order;

Provided further that no such order shall be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour order has been passed to appear and be heard in support of it."

7. The