Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dt. 28.2.2011 and 23.4.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 Roopa Ram has been accepted and the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected respectively. The respondent No. 3 Smt. Dallu filed a suit for partition, declaration of khatedari, correction of record and permanent injunction against the respondents No. 4 to 20 and the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit Roopa Ram claiming himself to be adopted son of Smt. Dallu and her husband Gumana Ram filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment as party -plaintiff in the suit.
(2.) THE Sub -Divisional Officer, Deedwana by his order dt. 19.4.2004 rejected the application filed by Roopa Ram on noticing that as the evidence of plaintiff is already over and if Roopa Ram wanted any relief being adopted son of Gumana Ram, he can seek such relief from his mother and the application was highly belated. Aggrieved against that, Roopa Ram filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue wherein by order dt. 28.2.2011 the Board came to the conclusion that the applicant Roopa Ram had interest in the property of Gumana Ram and he should have been impleaded as party. However, while passing the order, the trial Court directed to implead Roopa Ram as party, take his written statement, frame fresh issues and in case, any issue is raised regarding adoption deed, the same be sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
(3.) THE review petition filed by the petitioner regarding the order dt. 28.2.2011 was rejected by the Board of Revenue.;