JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/ Gram Panchayat concerned, Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Advocate along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6, which is taken on record, and Sri Manoj Kumar Nishad, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8 & 9, which is taken on record.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to rest of the private respondents is hereby dispensed with. They are also at liberty to file an appropriate application for recall of this order, if they are aggrieved by it.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Revision filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case No. 1478 of 2022, Computerized Case No. C202208000001478 (Balmiki Pandey And Others v. Prem Narayan And Others), whereby, the respondent No. 3 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 17.10.2022 passed on an application/objection preferred under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in Case No. 7190 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T2022208300607190 ( Prem Narayan Pandey v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others), by which, the application/objection filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 was finally disposed of amounting to rejection of same. The order dated 17.10.2022 is also under challenge in this petition.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of language couched under Section 210 of the Code of 2006, the revision challenging the order dated 17.10.2022, whereby, an application/objection was finally disposed of amounting to rejection of the same was maintainable. However, the Revisional Authority/respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner (Administration)-II, Devi Patan Region, Gonda without taking note of the relevant provisions i.e. Section 210 of the Code of 2006 and the law on the issue, rejected the revision after observing that the order dated 17.10.2022 is an interlocutory order, as such, the revision is not maintainable.

5. Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 very fairly stated that the revision challenging the order dated 17.10.2022 was maintainable. Other counsel representing the side opposite also reiterated that the revision was maintainable.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds that it appropriate to reproduce Section 210 of the Code of 2006, which is as under:-

"210 Power to call for the records. -(1) The Board or the Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any sub-ordinate Revenue Court in which no appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding; and if such subordinate Court appears to have-

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction of vested; or

(c) acted in the exercise of such jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity;

the Board, or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may pass such order in the case as it or he thinks fit.

(2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Explanation. - For the removal of doubt it is, hereby, declared that when an application under this section has been moved either to the Board or to t