JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.B. Singh, along with Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and also Sri Vinod Kumar Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The present petition seeks to raise an issue with regard to availability of the statutory remedy of a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against an order of remand passed in an appeal.

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that land bearing plot no. 89 measuring an area of 0.150 hectares situate at Village Harakhpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh was jointly held by two real brothers namely Rajdeo and Hardeo having equal share. One half of the undivided share of the aforestated plot was purchased by the respondent no.6 and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.05.2003 executed by one of the coowners namely, Hardeo. The remaining half of the share was purchased by the petitioner on 01.10.2004 through a registered sale deed from the other coowner namely Rajdeo. The names of the petitioners as well as contesting respondents were mutated in the revenue records as cosharers of the plot in question.

4. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006[the Revenue Code] for division of the holding in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagri, Azamgarh.

5. The private respondents, though parties in the suit, did not file their written statements, and a preliminary decree was passed on 23.01.2019.

6. Thereafter, a Kurra report and map showing the proportionate shares of the parties were prepared by the concerned Lekhpal, which were consequently affirmed and an order dated 26.10.2019 was passed for making the final decree.

7. The respondent no. 6, at this stage, filed a restoration application dated 13.12.2019 seeking recall of the order dated 26.10.2019. It was contended that the concerned respondent got no notice with regard to passing of the order in the suit for the division of holdings.

8. The restoration application filed by respondent no. 6 was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in terms of an order dated 27.12.2021. The Court concerned, while rejecting the restoration application, also made certain observations on merits to the effect that in a joint holding in the absence of any partition, the sale deed could not be held valid and no claim for division of holding could be made on the basis thereof.

9. Assailing the aforestated final order dated 26.10.2019 passed in the suit under Section 116, respondent no. 6 preferred an appeal under Section 207 of the Revenue Code. The respondent no. 5 also preferred an appeal against the said order.

10. The respondent no. 6 further raised a challenge to the order dated 27.12.2021, whereby the restoration application filed by the said respondent had been rejected, in an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

11. The aforestated three appeals were heard and decided by a common order dated 18.11.2022, passed by respondent no.2/Commissioner Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh. The respondent no.2 while exercising its appellate powers took notice of the fact that the Court below had rejected the restoration application filed by respondent no. 6 by making an observation on merits. In this regard, the appellate Court took notice of the fact that the registered sale deed which was available on the record of the case was indicative of the fact that the plot in question was not the ancestral property of the parties but the same had been purchased by both the parties from the original tenure holder on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in the years 2003 and 2004, respectively, showing separate boundaries. It was also noticed that on the basis of aforestated sale deeds the parties concerne