Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order dt. 18.08.2009, the learned Board of Revenue has held that the present petitioner, Ram Swaroop S/o late Sh. Nagar Mal, should go before the first revenue Court of learned S.D.O., Churu only, and in the pending Revenue Suit No. 7/09 - Smt. Geeta Devi vs. Ram Swaroop and State of Rajasthan, he (defendant) can raise his contentions in the stay application filed by the respondent -plaintiff, Smt. Geeta Devi.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by this order, the petitioner. Ram Swaroop has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revenue suit in question was filed by the plaintiff -respondent Smt. Geeta Devi against the present petitioner, Ram Swaroop for declaration, partition and permanent injunction. The said revenue suit as well as the stay application filed along -with the suit are still pending consideration before the learned S.D.O., Churu. The only grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the learned Board of revenue was rather swayed by its own decision rendered by it in the case of Premvati & Ors. vs. Ramkhiladi & Ors. (Revision No. 2009/4153) reported in, 2008 (2) RRT P. 1330, referred to in para 14 of the impugned order, and held that instead of filing appeal against the interlocutory order of learned S.D.O., Churu, the petitioner should approach the first revenue Court of S.D.O. itself and raise his contentions for rejection of stay application filed by the plaintiff -respondent, Smt. Geeta Devi.
(3.) MR . J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that before the learned Board of Revenue, the Supreme Court decision in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan & Ors. reported in : AIR 2000 SC 3032, was referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in which the Apex Court has held that against the interlocutory orders passed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, such interlocutory orders are appealable before the next higher appellate authority. He, therefore, urged that the learned Board of Revenue has erred in directing the present to go before the first revenue Court of learned S.D.O., Churu itself since appeal itself was maintainable as per aforesaid Supreme Court decision and the appellate authority ought to have decided the stay application filed by the plaintiff -respondent, which was being opposed by the present petitioner, Ram Swaroop.;