M.L.JOSHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner seeks to q lash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 7 -8 1972.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under. The petitioner filed a suit on 29th of June, 1966, in the court of the Assistant Collector Deedwana for perpetual injunction praying that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner. The defendants in their written statement contested the claim of the plaintiff -petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Assistant Collector framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the field khasra No. 76 area 89 bighas 4 biswas situated in village Giroda Khara is in possession of the plaintiff. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of perpetual inunctions against the defendant. 3. Relief? The learned Assistant Collector after recording the evidence produced on behalf of both the sides dismissed the plaintiff's suit by his judgment dated 31st of December, 1970. The plaintiff having felt aggrieved from the said judgment preferred first appeal under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority in its turn by its decision set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, remanded the case back to the court of the learned Assistant Collector after framing three mere issues and directed it to give an opportunity of leading documentary as well as oral evidence to both the parties and then decide the case afresh on merits. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority in its decision simultaneously passed as order appointing Receiver on the disputed land.
(3.) THE plaintiff -petitioner felt aggrieved by this order and so went in second appeal before the Board of Revenue challenging the order of remand as well as to the order of appointment of Receiver. The Board of Revenue registered the appeal and disposed it on the preliminary point that the same was not competent as it was not accompanied by a decree sheet. It consequently dismissed the second appeal by its impugned Ex. 2 dated 7 -8 -2.;