ARVIND, MEMBER–The brief facts of this matters are as under :– (2). This revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was presented before this court against an order of S.D.O.-I, Jaipur dated 21.3.2005. By that order, S.D.O. rejected an application of the petitioner to implead him as a party in a suit instituted by non-petitioners. The member of the suit is 63/04. By this revision, the petitioner requested this court that a suit for division & permanent injunction is pending in the court of S.D.O.-I, Jaipur regarding khasra No. 96 area measuring 113 bighas. The claim of the petitioner is that he purchased a piece of land on 16.3.1980 from co-tenant Munna by a registered deed (share 9/488). This land measured 2 bighas 5 biswas and possession was handed over. In view of the purchase bya registered deed, the petitioner became a share-holder in the alleged land and he is a necessary party in the suit pending with the court of S.D.O., Jaipur. This petition was heard by Honble Member Shri B.K. Meena on 01.4.2005 and this revision was ordered to be admitted for hearing and the stay order, as requested, was also granted ordering that the order of S.D.O.-I, Jaipur dated 21.3.2005 is stayed and further proceedings in the case No. 63/04 were also stayed. (3). Aggrieved by this admission and the stay order, an application on behalf of non-petitioner Paramjeet Kaur was presented by learned advocate Shri Shiv Singh Chaudhary in this court saying that a caveat had been presented in this court on behalf of non-petitioner Paramjeet Kaur against a possible revision well before i.e., on 24.3.2005 and also a registered letter was issued to the petitioner in this revision informing him about the request of caveat. On this application, this matter came up for hearing before this bench for the request of recall of the order made on 01.4.2005 in the revision petition. When this matter came up for hearing before this bench, the learned advocate of the caveator Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary told us that the learned advocate of the petitioner Shri Atma Ram Sharma is present and he has informed him about the request of withdrawal of the order dated 01.4.2005. (4). Both the advocates viz. When this matter came up for hearing before this bench, the learned advocate of the caveator Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary told us that the learned advocate of the petitioner Shri Atma Ram Sharma is present and he has informed him about the request of withdrawal of the order dated 01.4.2005. (4). Both the advocates viz. learned Atma Ram Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner Shri Samwar Mal and learned Shri Shiv Singh Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the caveator Paramjeet Kaur. Both the learned advocates were heard. (5). The contents of the learned advocate Shri Shiv Singh Chaudhary on behalf of the caveator Paramjeet Kaur are that a caveat had been presented to the Board on 24.3.2005 and registered notices were issued to the possible petitioner, but despite this fact on record, the revision petition was admitted by the Board on 01.4.2005 and stay was granted against the proceedings of the S.D.O. in the case No. 63/04. This was a mistake on the part of the office of Registrar that the information about caveat was not put up before the Honble bench and the caveator need not suffer for the mistake of the office. Learned Chaudhary also pleaded that there are several decisions of the Honble superiorcourts in whichit has become a settled principle that once a caveat is filed, the caveator is to be heard before any order is passed. He drew my attention to the following reported decisions:- AIR Rajasthan 1980 page 82 RRD 1985 page 1 AIR Karnataka 1981 page 242 AIR Calcutta 1987 page 492 (6). Replying to the request of the caveator to withdraw the order issued on 01.4.2005, the learned advocate Shri Atmaram Sharma argued as under (7). That this revision in the Board has been presented against order of the S.D.O.-I, Jaipur passed on 21.3.2005. Revision has been presented u/s 230 of the RT Act. Section 230 of the RT Act authorises the Board to call for the record and examine orders like this in a revision. This is a revision and revision is a right of the court and it is not a right of the litigant. Since S.D.O.-I, Jaipur has committed irregularity and illegality; hence, the Board of Revenue has a right to revise such orders. This is a revision and revision is a right of the court and it is not a right of the litigant. Since S.D.O.-I, Jaipur has committed irregularity and illegality; hence, the Board of Revenue has a right to revise such orders. He also argued that the cases referred during the course of arguments (as above) by the caveators advocate Shri Chaudhary deal with the appeals and not revisions. In this case, revision has been admitted and the caveator cannot object for an examination by the Board which is the right of the Board to examine such matters. Revision is a matter between the Board and the subordinate courts and no litigant can object to the powers of such revision. To support his pleadings, he drew my attention to RRD 1985 page 1, RRD 1990 page 347 and RLW 1993 Vol.-1 page 549. Learned Shri Atmaram Sharma also argued that the insertion of section 148-A in the CPC intends that no effective order should be passed before hearing the caveator; but in this case, no order has been passed by which the revision petitioner gets any advantage either regarding possession or any other matter. In the case referred by the caveator, it has nowhere been mentioned that revision cannot be admitted without hearing the caveator. In the revision petition presented by the revision petitioner Sanwar Mal, only proceedings of the lower court have been stayed and no order has been passed in favour of the either party. (8). Replying to the arguments raised by the revision-petitioner, learned advocate of the caveator requested for withdrawal of the stay order passed in this matter. (9). The learned Govt. Advocate Shri J.P. Mathur supported this argument that orders for admission can be passed without hearing the caveator, but no order issuing any direction or making any order for stay can be made without hearing the caveator. (10). Having heard all the parties and having heard the learned advocates, it would be relevant to mention the number of extracts of the cases cited during the course of arguments by both sides :- (A) AIR 1981 KARNATAKA 242 ``G.C. Siddalingappa vs. G.C. Veeranna (supra): (11). Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S. 148-A (3) (as inserted by Act 104 of 1976)-Application for interim order-Caveat filed as per sub-section (1) of Section 148-A-Section 148-A (3) is condition precedent for serving application on caveator before passing interim order. Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S. 148-A (3) (as inserted by Act 104 of 1976)-Application for interim order-Caveat filed as per sub-section (1) of Section 148-A-Section 148-A (3) is condition precedent for serving application on caveator before passing interim order. (B) AIR 1981 Karnataka 242 ``G.C. Siddalingappa vs. G.C. Veeranna (supra): (12). Therefore, the interim order passed by the lower appellate court on 28.2.1981 without serving a notice of the application on the petitioner-caveator, is liable to be set aside, as the learned Civil Judge could not have passed an ex-parte order in a case where the caveat had been filed. (C) RRD 1990 page 347 Bajranga vs. State of Rajasthan`` (supra): (b) Raj. Tenancy Act, Section 230-A revision petition is more in the nature of a issue between the Board of Revenue and the subordinate court rather than between the litigants-A revision is not the right of the litigant, it is a right of the court-There is nothing in 1987 RLW 1 which has the effect of taking away the rights of the Board vested in it u/s 230. (D) RRD 1990 page 347 Bajranga vs. State of Rajasthan`` (supra): (13). The present revision petition has been filed u/s 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 230 of the said Act empowers the Board of Revenue to call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate revenue court to examine its legality. A revision petition is more in the nature of an issue between the Board of Revenue and the subordinate court rather than between the litigants. A revision is not a right of the litigants; it is a right of the court. (E) RLW 1993 Vol.-I page 549 Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangthan & Others vs. M.L. Mudgal (supra) : (14). C.P.C. Sec. 148-A, added by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976-It did not provide for hearing of a caveator before admission-The admission does not affect the right of the person against whom the appeal is admitted-Admission made in the absence of the caveators counsel does not nullify or invalidate. (F) RLW 1993 Vol.-I page 549 ``Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangthan & Others vs. M.L. Mudgal (supra) : (8) It appears that the legislature did not provide for hearing of a caveator before admission. The admission made in the absence of the caveators counsel does not nullify or invalidate. (F) RLW 1993 Vol.-I page 549 ``Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangthan & Others vs. M.L. Mudgal (supra) : (8) It appears that the legislature did not provide for hearing of a caveator before admission. The admission made in the absence of the caveators counsel does not nullify or invalidate. The admission, as a matter of fact, does not affect the right of the person against whom the appeal has been admitted. It is only a procedural matter in between the court and the appellant. (G) RRD 1985 page 1 ``Sohanlal vs. Nandram (supra): (15). Civil P.C., Sec. 148A(3)-Caveator, entitled to get notice-Caveat, filed on 11.7.84 and notice, sent to appellants by regd. post-Appeal, filed on 13.7.84, admitted and ex-parte stay order, passed where name of counsel for resp., neither shown in cause list nor caveat etc., attached with file-Omission of not issuing notice was fault of Registry of Board-Registry, not fulfilled its duty since resp., bound to be heard prior to passing of stay order-No one can be prejudiced by faultof court-Ex-parte stay order, recalled- AIR 1980 Raj. 82 (supra), followed. (16). In view of the discussions made herein-above and in view of the principles decided by the Honble courts in the decisions supra, it is clear that it is not mandatory to hear the caveator before admission, but it is mandatory to hear the caveator before any stay order is passed. (17). Therefore, the order of admission made by Honble Member Shri B.K. Meena on 01.4.2005 deserves no interference in view of the settled principles of law as discussed above, but the stay order passed by the same order is recalled and it is necessary that the caveator has to be heard again for issue of any stay order in this matter. Before this matter is heard, the revision petitioner Sanwar Mal is duty bound to give copy of the petition to the non-petitioners. (18). Order pronounced today.