Honble SHETHNA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). It is unfortunate that two real brothers are fighting i.e. the petitioner and respondent no. 4 for the property in question. By an order at Annexure 2, R.A.A. remanded the matter to the S.D.O, Raisinghnagar. That order was challenged in revision by the respondent No.4 before the B.O.R. which was surprisingly came to be allowed by the B.O.R. by order at Annexure 3. (3). Law on this point is very clear. Ordinarily, the revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised in such a way, which caused prejudice to the other side, particularly, when the matter was remanded to the S.D.O. by the appellate authority. R.A.A. has given good and cogent reasons for allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the S.D.O.. In that view of the matter, B.O.R. being a revisional authority should have been slow in interfering with the order passed in appeal. Unless and until, jurisdictional error was committed by the R.A.A., the revisional authority should not have interfered with the order.. (4). Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order passed in revision by B.O.R., but this being an exceptional case, this Court is compelled to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on facts of this case. (5). Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure 3 passed by the B.O.R. is hereby quashed and set aside. The order at Annexure 2 papassed by the R.A.A. is restored to the file and now the S.D.O. shall proceed as ordered by the R.A.A. on 22.9.97 (Annexure. 2) and decide the case as early as possible, because it is an old case. (6). With the above direction, this petition is allowed.