This is a special appeal under sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the order passed by Shri R.N. Hawa sitting in single Bench granting the review application in this case dated the 10th August, 1961. Briefly, the facts are that the second appeal was pending in this case in a Division Bench consisting of Shri Kanwar Bahadur Mathur and Shri R.N. Hawa the then Members of the Board who on 27.9.60 confirmed the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. A review application was filed by the respondent Brijmohan on 7.1.61. Ordinarily this review application should have been heard and disposed of by Shri Kanwar Bahadur Mathur and Shri R.N. Hawa, who constituted the Bench disposing of the second appeal. But Shri K.B. Mathur retired in April, 1961 and was thus no longer remained attached to the Board. The review application was heard and granted by Shri R.N. Hawa sitting singly on 10th August, 1961. Aggrieved by that order the appellant had filed this special appeal under sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that the order of Shri R.N. Hawa sitting in the single bench and granting review application was not a final order and that does not dispose of the case finally. Secondly he contended that the order of Shri R.N. Hawa sitting singly then the other Member was not attached to the Board was by legal fiction the order of the Division Bench and as such it was not appealable. The counsel for the appellants simple reply was with regard to the first contention raised by the counsel for the respondent that Shri R.N. Hawas order completely disposed of the pending review application and there was nothing more to be done in that case. The previous order passed by the Division Bench has been set aside by the order under appeal and the old appeal as a result thereof has been revived. The main contention whether there was an error on the face of the record or not in the review application was completely disposed of. The previous order passed by the Division Bench has been set aside by the order under appeal and the old appeal as a result thereof has been revived. The main contention whether there was an error on the face of the record or not in the review application was completely disposed of. As regards the second contention the counsel repelled the arguments made by the counsel for the respondent by saying that similar to the provisions of the Letters Patent rules in the High Court the provision exist in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual as well as Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act wherein a decision of the single bench is appealable before the Division Bench and the order of Shri R.N. Hawa passed in review application cannot be considered as the order of the Division Bench. The point of decision before us is whether this appeal against the order of Shri R.N. Hawa under sec. 10 of the Land Revenue Act is maintainable or not. In support of the contention the counsel for the respondent relied on A I.R. 1952 Travancore Cochin page 1 and AIR 1942 Mad. p. 23, wherein under the provision of order 47, rule 5 C.P.C. it has been laid down that only judge or judges who passed the order alone could review the previous order and entertain such application for review. The counsel for the appellant however relied on A.I.R. 1956 of Allahabad, page 698. The question for consideration before us is whether the order appealed against passed by Shri R. N. Hawa was properly made in exercise of his lawful jurisdiction. Before considering this question it is necessary to examine the subject matter of the case in which this review application was filed. The case related to a tenancy matter and the Board was sitting in second appeal while exercising jurisdiction over it. There is a provision of review under tenancy Act which has to be exercised within the scope of O. 47 of the C.P.C. Thus the provision of C.P.C. would clearly apply to this case in dealing with a review application. The case related to a tenancy matter and the Board was sitting in second appeal while exercising jurisdiction over it. There is a provision of review under tenancy Act which has to be exercised within the scope of O. 47 of the C.P.C. Thus the provision of C.P.C. would clearly apply to this case in dealing with a review application. O. 47, r. 5 clearly lays down that where the two conditions are satisfied that the judge or judges who passed the original decree are not absent and continue to remain attached to the Court within six months from the date of the filing of the review application are alone empowered to hear the review application. In the cases cited by the counsel on both sides some controversy has been pointed out in this case whereby as to the right of hearing review application after the expiry of six months from the presentation of the application. In fact there has been differences of opinion amongst the judges of the full bench in the case cited by the counsel for the respondent in A. I. R. 1953 Travancore Cochin page 1. In that case justice Shankeren and Gangadhar and Menon were of the opinion that a review application under order 47, Rule 5 on the satisfaction of the two conditions cannot be heard by any Judge or Judges who had not participated in the judgment, decree or order sought to be reviewed. Subramanya Iyer Justice however was of the opinion that where the review application has been pending for more than six months from the date of the presentation the prohibition of its being heard by other Judges does not exist. It is therefore clear that this review application could be heard by any of the judges after expiry of six months from the date of its presentation. In this case in particular it may be recalled that the application was presented on 7th January, 1961 and it was heard and granted by Shri R. N. Hawa one of the remaining Members of the Board, Shri K. B. Mathur having retired on 10th August, 1961 which was long after the expiry of six months. In this case in particular it may be recalled that the application was presented on 7th January, 1961 and it was heard and granted by Shri R. N. Hawa one of the remaining Members of the Board, Shri K. B. Mathur having retired on 10th August, 1961 which was long after the expiry of six months. Thus this review application could have been heard and disposed of by the members of the Board who did not participate in the hearing of the appeal and issue of the decree as the six months had already elapsed. It seems therefore that Shri R. N. Hawa was competent to dispose of this review application without the assistance of Shri K. B. Mathur who had already retired, but it had been argued by the counsel for the appellant that in granting this review application Shri R. N. Hawa committed an illegality by exercising a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. The counsels contention was that Order 47 only provides substantive and procedural law governing the disposal of the review application. It does not confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal to dispose of such application. Therefore the jurisdiction has to be derived from other controlling act of Legislature. The counsel for the appellant therefore urged that the rules conferring jurisdiction in the case of the Members of the Board of Revenue were laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as well as Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual. He further pointed out that even the rules of distribution of business amongst the various Rajasthan High Court has been laid down. He referred to Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952, wherein a provision has been made for the disposal of review application under Order 47, Rule 5 in which it has been clearly laid down that if a review application is presented then it should be disposed of by the Judge or Judges who participated in the grant of the original order, but if they are not available then the application has to be put up to the Chief Justice who shall arrange for a Bench for hearing and dispose of such application. The proviso to Rule 64 further states that where a review was of a judgment of a single Judge and he is not available for six months for considering the application such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench of two or more Judges. Where the review application relates to a judgment by two or more judges and if one or more Judges who passed the decree is absent for a period of six months and over after the presentation of the application and not available for considering such application, it shall be heard and disposed of by Bench consisting of the same number or a greater number of Judges. The question, therefore, remains now is whether we have similar provision for disposal of review application in the business rules of the Board of Revenue. Chapter 2 Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual provides for the class of cases to be heard and disposed of by a Member sitting singly and rule 9 provides the class of cases to be heard by the Division Bench. It is only in rule 8 that a provision for a judgment of review has been made wherein a single Member of the Board passed the order sought to be reviewed. No such provision however exists in Rule 9. It is therefore logical and by the process of parity of reasoning that in matters of review application in a case where it is disposed of by a Division Bench at least another Division Bench should hear the review application. It is just and proper that in a case disposed of by the Division Bench a review application pertaining to it should also be heard and disposed of by the same Bench or by the Bench consisting of one of the original Member and another or both by new members, if the original Members who passed the decree did not remain attached to the Board for a period of six months from the date of the presentation of the application. The argument of the counsel for the respondent that Shri R. N. Hawa as the sole Member who passed the original order was alone competent to dispose of this review application does not find support from any legal authority or any provision of law. The argument of the counsel for the respondent that Shri R. N. Hawa as the sole Member who passed the original order was alone competent to dispose of this review application does not find support from any legal authority or any provision of law. He was not the person who alone passed the original order and therefore he alone could not have heard the review application. The subject matter of the appeal before Shri R. N. Hawa and Shri K. B. Mathur was of the category that could be disposed of by Division Bench only. Therefore a single Member can not dispose of a review application pertaining to the judgment passed in appeal by a Division Bench. The argument of the counsel for the respondent that Shri R. N. Hawa single Members judgment is by fiction of law, a judgment of the Division Bench has not been supported by any authority cited by him. It therefore stands to reason that Shri R. N. Hawa sitting singly could not have disposed of a case which was capable of being decided by a Division Bench only. The words Judge or Judges appearing in Order 47, Rule 5 only means that where one Judge has decided the original case he alone should decide if available, the review application pertaining to it, but where two judges have decided the case that atleast as provided in the Rajasthan High Court Rules only two judges can hear the application if they are available within six months from the date of the presentation of the application or any other two judges or more could dispose of such review application thereafter as provided in Rule 64. Similar provisions exist in the U. P. Revenue Court Manual regarding the Board of Revenue. We have also had the opportunity of examining a recent judgment on the same point by another Division Bench of this Board in which it has been held that a review application granted by a member sitting singly against the judgment passed by a Division Bench was held competent without assigning any reason for doing so. We differ from the view taken by the above Division Bench and distinguish it from this present case, for reasons stated above. We are clearly of the opinion that the order passed by a Member sitting singly granting this review application was illegal and without jurisdiction. We differ from the view taken by the above Division Bench and distinguish it from this present case, for reasons stated above. We are clearly of the opinion that the order passed by a Member sitting singly granting this review application was illegal and without jurisdiction. We, therefore, accept this special appeal set aside the order of Shri R. N. Hawa granting the review application sitting singly and direct that this review application be heard and disposed of by another Division Bench, as the Members who passed the original order ceased to be attached to this Board.