JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 1. Jodhpur Nagar Palika dated September 26, 1987 by which he has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner and confirmed the order of the Munsif, Bilara dated November 11,1984, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying that the defendant Nagar Palika, Bilara be retrained free selling the disputed land to the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 Pemaram. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner's case is that the house of the parties are situated in the town of Bilara, a lane exists adjacent to their houses, the defendant Pemaram applied for the purchase of a part of it alleging that it is a strip of land, the defendant No. 1, Nagar Palika, Bilara has passed an order for its sale, their windows, ventilaters and doors open towards it and the effluent of the houses also falls there. It has been prayed in the plaint that the Nagar Palika, Bilara be restrained through permanent injunction from executing the sale-deed in respect of a part of the land of the lane and getting it registered and the defendant-non-petitioner Pemaram be restrained from occupying it Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was moved. The defendant Pemaram only filed, his reply seriously opposing it. He averred in it that the disputed land is not a part of the public street but it is a part of the ship of land. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsiff dismissed the application. The plaintiff petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned lower courts have acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the disputed land is not a part of the public street but it is a part of the strip of land. He also contended that the lower courts have ignored various documents on record and their findings are based on surmises and conjectures. He also contended that the lower courts have ignored various documents on record and their findings are based on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that even if the disputed land is held to be a part of strip of land, it could not be sold by private negotiation and it can be sold through auction as required under Rule 23, Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules'). He relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Manak Chand v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal No. 201/87 D/- 7.9.1987 (Raj). 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner No.2 Pemaram that both the lower Court have given concurrent findings that the disputed land is a part of the strip of land and not a part of the public street This Court sitting in revision has no jurisdiction to interfere with there findings of fact He relied upon A.I.R. 1986 S.C 153, A.I.R. 1986 S.C 446, A.I.R. 1973 S.C 76, 1988 R.L.W 374, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2379, AIR 1984 S.C 1894 . He further contended that it is not the case of the plaintiff-petitioners that the disputed land should have been auctioned as required by Rule Section 23 of the Rules. 5. There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned lower Courts have ignored the various documents on record. The photostat copy of the sale-deed, paper No.11C/2, of the house of the defendant No.4 Pemaram shows that to the north of his house a lane exists and not a strip of land. The certified copy of the order, paper No.C7/2, by which the sale of the disputed land in favour of the defendant No.4 Pemaram has been sanctioned clearly recites in the end that it is a part of a lane It does not say that this is a part of ship of land. The certified copy of the letter, paper No. C 7/4, written by the chairman, Nagarpalika, Bilara to the Assistant Director, Local Bodies, Jodhpur another the disputed land as a part of a land. The certified copy of the letter, paper No. C 7/4, written by the chairman, Nagarpalika, Bilara to the Assistant Director, Local Bodies, Jodhpur another the disputed land as a part of a land. Copies of the letters, papers No.C15./3-4 and No.C15/5-6, show that these letter were written by the defendant Pemaram to the defendant No.1 Nagarpalika, Bilara and in there letters, the disputed land has been shown as a part of the lane. The learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 Pemaram was repeatedly requested to point out the relevant portions of die orders of the lower courts wherein these documents were considered and explained but he could not do so. It is thus clear that the learned lower courts have committed material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in not considering these material documents. Reference of 1982 R.L.R 505, 1982 W.L.N. (UC) 524. may be made here. In the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner No.2, documents were not ignored. On this ground alone, the orders under revision deserve to be set aside. 6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. In para No.5 of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated September 26, 1987, it is stated that the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner contended before him that the disputed land even assuming to be a strip of land and not a public street, could not be sold by private negotiation and attention towards the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 was invited. The provisions of the Rule 23 (2) clearly provide that where two or more persons are interested in the strip, there shall be auction only between those whose plots or building adjoin the strip of land provided that before suctioning such strip of land a public notice shall be issued. The very fact that the plaintiff Mangilal is seriously opposing the sale of the disputed land to the defendant Pemaram since the beginning slows that he is very much interested in the disputed land. It has also come on record that his doors & windows open towards it. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the Rules does not require that two or more persons should be interested in the purchase of the strip of land. It has also come on record that his doors & windows open towards it. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the Rules does not require that two or more persons should be interested in the purchase of the strip of land. It simply requires that two or more persons whose plots of building are adjacent to the strip of land are interested in it. Their interest may be of any kind or nature. It has been observed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.20/87 Manak Chand v. State of Rajasthan & others , (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court as follows: "In such a situation, the Municipal Board, Halotra had no,alternative but to auction it under Rule 23(2) of the Rules. These rules do not provide for sub-division of strip of land. The disputed strip of land could not, therefore, be sub-divided and sold to the petitioner & non-petitioner in equal parts." Thus the revision petition deserves to be allowed with costs. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The order of the Munsif, Bilara dated 12.11.1984 and the judgment of the Additional District Judge No.l,Jodhpur dated 26.9.1987 are set aside. The Nagar Palika Bilara (defendant No. 1) & Pemaram (defendant No.4) arc restrained from getting the sale-deed in respect of the disputed land registered till the decision of the suit The defendant No. 4 Pemaram is also restrained from occupying the disputed land.Revision allowed. *******