This revision has been presented against order dated 23-2-1967 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. The relevant facts are that Badia, plaintiff, non-applicant here filed a suit against Mohd. Jama, defendant, applicant here, for ejectment u/s 183 Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The trial Court, Asstt. Collector, Pratapgarh decreed the suit ex parte. Mohammad Jama submitted an application for setting aside the ex parte decree; but this was dismissed by the trial Court. Mohammad Jama went in appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority and failed and hence this revision. We have heard the Advocate for the parties and have perused the record. A preliminary objection was raised by the Advocate for Badia, non-applicant that the revision was not maintainable as an appeal was provided against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. He cited A.l.R 1937 Allahabad page 691. In this it is held that no revision lies to the High Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order under O, 9, R. 13 refusing to set aside an ex parte decree as the person aggrieved by the ex parte decree can appeal against the order of passing an ex parte decree. 1967 R.R.D. page 37 was also cited in favour of the plea that where an appeal is provided revision cannot be maintained before the Board of Revenue. The Advocate for applicant stated that the order of the trial Court dismissing his application was not a decree but an order and u/s 225 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act a second appeal against this order was barred and so he had to come in revision. It was contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the instant point in as much as they were inconsistent with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and u/s 208 Rajasthan Tenancy Act so far as the inconsistency extended, the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to suits and proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1961 R.R.D. page 120 was cited. This holds that Section 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the suits and proceedings under the Act so far as relevant for the purposes of deciding the appeal only when they are not inconsistent with anything therein. 1961 R.R.D. page 120 was cited. This holds that Section 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the suits and proceedings under the Act so far as relevant for the purposes of deciding the appeal only when they are not inconsistent with anything therein. It was held that Sec. 104 and 0.43 R.l of the C.P.C. were not consistent with Sec. 225 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that being so sec. 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must prevail. We have considered the matter. The rules cited by the Advocate for non-applicant who made the preliminary objection are not applicable to the instant case inasmuch as they are based on the Code of Civil Procedure which on the particular point before us is not consistent to the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and has to give way. As u/s 225 Rajasthan Tenancy Act the appellate order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was not appealable, a revision against it lies to the Board of Revenue. The preliminary objection is thus over-ruled and the case may be listed for hearing on merits on some other date.