JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent no. 2 Gram Panchayat allotted plot to one Smt. Ram Piyari by an order dated 23.10.86. Revision petition was filed by the present Petitioners against the same order before the respondent no. 3-Additional District Collector, Bhilwara under Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 read. with Rule 72 of Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 which was accepted by the respondent no. 3 by his order dated 21.6.88 and :he allotment order passed by the Gram Panchayat on 23.10.86 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Gram Panchayat with a direction to make fresh allotment after complying with the provisions of Rules 256 to 266 in of the General Rules, 1961. 2. On 23.9.95, the respondent no. 1 Udai Lal made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the respondent no. 3 stating that Smt. Ram Piyari, who died during the pendency of the case, had sold the plot in question to him even before the filing of the revision petition by Madho Lal - present petitioner but he was not joined as party respondent and, therefore, his application be granted and the order passed in revision petition on 21.6.88 be recalled and revision petition be decided after hearing him. The respondent no. 3 accepted the application filed by the respondent no. 1 by his order dated 3.4.98 (Annex. 1) and recalled his earlier order dated 21.6.88 and further ordered that the revision petition be heard afresh after showing Udai Lal as respondent no. 3. In the said revision petition and the main revision petition was fixed for hearing on 1.5.98. This impugned order at Annex. 1 is challenged by the present petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Mathur for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 ought not to have accepted the application submitted by the respondent no. 1 before him and recalled his order dated 21.6.88 because the said application was filed after a gross delay of about 7 years. This submission of Mr. Mathur cannot be accepted for the simple reason that time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that substantial justice should be done and not technical one. When the respondent no. This submission of Mr. Mathur cannot be accepted for the simple reason that time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that substantial justice should be done and not technical one. When the respondent no. 3 thought it fit to entertain the application filed before him after a lapse of 7 years for the purpose of doing substantial justice and recalled his earlier order dated 21.6.88, then in my opinion this Court cannot interfere with such order in its jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. By passing the impugned order at Annex. 1, the respondent no. 3 has only ordered for hearing of the revision petition filed by the present petitioner before him against the order passed by the respondent no. 2 for allotment of plot in favour of the deceased Ram Piyari from whom the respondent no. 1 alleged to have purchased the said plot before the revision petition was filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is always open for the petitioner to prove his case on merits before the respondent no. 3 in revision petition filed by him that the respondent no. 2 has wrongly allotted the plot in question to Ram Piyari from whom the respondent no. 1 has purchased the said plot. Therefore, this Court will not interfere with such orders. 4. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Now the respondent no. 3 - Additional Collector, Bhilwara before whom the petitioner had filed the revision petition will hear and decide the revision petition after extending an opportunity to all concerned parties as early as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******