JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - These are two review applications against the Board's order dated 16 8-76 in two connected second appeals Nos. 107 and 108 of 1972-73 Chamoli. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The preliminary objection of the opposite party about delay in filing the review applications was explained by the learned counsel for the applicant that a writ petition against the same Board's order was filed in the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-1-77 on a clear understanding before the Hon'ble High Court that an alternative remedy of review application before the Board was available. This is supported by an affidavit and no counter affidavit against the same has been filed. Accordingly, this is a bona fide delay which deserves condonation. 4. On merits, the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that, firstly, it was incorrectly observed in the order of the Board that Gaon Sabha had been impleaded as a party, and secondly, that no objection was filed by the appellant against the qurras and full opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant and that the trial court's orders were rather cursorily passed. The last point need not deserve notice in these review applications. But we find it a fact that Gaon Sabha was not made a party and there were at least two objections dated 23-2-73 and 7-12-72 against the quarras. It is a fact that Gaon Sabha was not sent a copy of the plaint and also that no written statement on behalf of Gaon Sabha was filed, obviously, these are errors apparent in the Board's judgment under review. 5. The learned counsel has cited several rulings to show that for Gaon Sabha not being made a party the entire proceedings before the trial court are vitiated. It is also observed that there is no real preliminary order in the suit for division of holdings passed by the trial court. In essence, both the orders dated 23-2-70 and 30-3-73 relate to the stage of final decree. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the writ petition was not an alternative remedy to the review petitions. However, he has also argued that the Hon'ble High Court could consider in the writ petition the errors apparent but did not choose to consider the same. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the writ petition was not an alternative remedy to the review petitions. However, he has also argued that the Hon'ble High Court could consider in the writ petition the errors apparent but did not choose to consider the same. So it is obvious that the writ petition has to be considered as an alternative remedy delaying the filing of review petitions. Finding the delay reasonably explained, it is condoned. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has not been able to show that the errors apparent pointed out are not made out. 8. In view of what has been mentioned above, the order under review cannot be maintained. Accordingly the review applications are allowed and the Board's order dated 16-8-76 in the two connected appeals is hereby set aside. 9. This order shall govern Review applications No. 22 and 23 of 1976-77 Chamoli.