Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition is directed against the order dt. 17.6.2009 accepting the application filed by respondent no. 1 under Order 9 R. 13 CPC setting aside the ex parte preliminary and final decree impugned herein and so also the revisional order dt. 11.9.2012 & review order passed by the Board of Revenue which came to be dismissed filed by the petitioner. As reveals from the record that the petitioner has filed revenue suit for partition and permanent injunction before the Sub Divisional Officer Lalsot, District Dausa and summon was issued to defendant respondent for framing of issues on 26.6.1995 and since the defendant respondent failed to appear initially ex parte decree was passed on 20.7.1995 and ex parte final decree was passed against the defendant respondent on 14.8.1995, however, the defendant respondent no. 1 filed application under Order 9 R. 13 CPC on 25.6.2002 and the learned revenue court allowed the application of deceased defendant respondent no. 1 vide order dt. 17.6.2009 and set aside the preliminary and final judgment and decree dt. 20.7.1995 and 14.8.1995 respectively and that was subject matter of challenge by way of revision before the Board of Revenue which came to be dismissed on 11.9.2013 and the review filed at behest of the petitioner also came to be dismissed on 13.2.2013.
(2.) THE main thrust of submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the fact which has been recorded before the learned court below regarding service not being effected upon Tehsildar who was one of the defendant in no manner could be considered a ground for setting aside the ex parte preliminary & final judgment and decree on application filed by one of the defendant respondent no. 1 under Order 9 R. 13 C.P.C. and that has not been looked into by the Board of Revenue even at the initial stage or at the stage of revision and so in the review application filed by the petitioner. This Court has gone through the order of the authority initially disposing of the application under Order 9 R. 13 CPC and so also the orders of the revisional authority and the detailed reasons have been assigned by the authority observing that summons could not be effected upon defendant respondent and in these facts and circumstances the finding of fact has been recorded and that being the ex parte proceedings initiated against the defendant respondent which was the reason for which ex parte preliminary and final judgment and decree was set aside and after going through it, Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the revenue court which may require interference by this Court u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.;