DIXIT, MEMBER—This is a complicated case. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (2). The land in dispute is in khasra No. 1060 - 10 bigha 6 biswa was initially purchased by the respondent No. 1 and it was transferred in his name vide mutation No. (3). This land was subsequently sold by the respondent No. 2 to the appellants vide mutation No. 497. The land was further exchanged by the appellant with one Bhanwarlal who is a party in one of the two matters through mutation No. 1431. The sale deed made by respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellant has been challenged by the respondent No. 1 in Civil Court. Mutation No. 497 was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the S.D.O. who set aside the mutation but in his order he failed to mention the correct number of mutation. Instead of 497, he mentioned 234. The S.D.O. in his order stated that the sale was ab initio void because of fragmentation under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (4). In the appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner by respondent No. 1 the decision of the S.D.O. was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been brought. (5). Learned counsel for the appellant said that firstly, the application before the S.D.O. was brought in after 7 years of the mutation having been decided. A suit challenging the validity of the sale deed was already pending under Section 88, 188 and 83, the point of limitation was not decided by the S.D.O. in spite of an application having been made. (6). Secondly, Additional Divisional Commissioner, in this decision has taken up point of validity of sale deed which was not raised as there was no cross objection by the applicant/respondents and a suit by the applicant/respondent was already pending. (7). Thirdly, the errors of adjudication committed by the S.D.O. in making an order of mutation No. 234 instead of mutation 497 were not reflected by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and he pointed out the errors by pronouncing the judgement on the same mutation No. 234. (8). Fourthly, the validity of the sale-deed cannot be examined in mutation 2003 RBJ page 12, 305 and 392 were cited in support. (9). Fifthly, the section 42 on the basis of which the S.D.O. held the mutation to be ab initio void had already been rescinded. (8). Fourthly, the validity of the sale-deed cannot be examined in mutation 2003 RBJ page 12, 305 and 392 were cited in support. (9). Fifthly, the section 42 on the basis of which the S.D.O. held the mutation to be ab initio void had already been rescinded. Not only that the Honble Rajasthan High Court in his decision 1998 RBJ 323 on 8.1.1998 had held that section 42 amendment was retrospective in nature whereas the S.D.O.s judgement was pronounced on 9.8.1998. (10). Sixthly, when a suit challenging the validity of sale-deed is already pending a mutation made on that basis cannot be challenged, 2003 page 403 and 1985 RRD page 170 were cited in support. (11). Seventhly, it was argued that if the disputed land is transferred under registered sale-deed mentioning the possession of the land, concellation of mutation is not justified 2002 RRD page 282 was cited in support. (12). Eighthly, 2003 RBJ 131 was cited and argued that a sale-deed is never ab initio void but is voidable. (13). Ninthly, the point of limitation has to be adjudicated as per 1998 DNJ 2 Rajasthan 707 and 1999 page 59 and 98. (14). There is also a second revision in which it was basically argued that the application of section 151/152 of C.P.C. decided in the S.D.O. court in which the number of mutation was changed from mutation No. 234 to 497 is under challenge. It is stated that the applicant was not given an opportunity of hearing and that the application was decided after the appellate court had clearly decided the appeal on merits. 2004 RBJ 14 was cited in support. (15). Third revision by Ram Niwas challenging the dismissal of an application of Section 212. Counsel for the non-applicant argued that an exchange had already taken place for the mutation No 1431 and the present applicant had no locus standi under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to bring a revision in connection with the land in dispute. He cited 1994 RRD page 616 and 1992 RRD page 364 regarding the maintainability of the revision. Further, the learned counsel argued that under the Hindu Minor and Guardianship Act, permission is a must before the natural guardian can transfer the land of a minor. That having not been done, the sale deed was ab initio void. He cited 1994 RRD page 616 and 1992 RRD page 364 regarding the maintainability of the revision. Further, the learned counsel argued that under the Hindu Minor and Guardianship Act, permission is a must before the natural guardian can transfer the land of a minor. That having not been done, the sale deed was ab initio void. 1999 RLW Volume 1 Rajasthan page 686, 1995, RRD page 113 and 1994 RRD page 229 were cited in support. It was also said that if the order is on the basis of a false document, limitation is not applicable. 1998 RRD page 319, 2001 RRT page 546 and 2002 RRT page 648 were cited to say that a mere technicality need not affect the judgement on merits. (16). It was further argued that no notice to either Ram Niwas or his father was given while deciding the mutation, 1995 RRD page 696 was cited on support. (17). Regarding the error committed by the S.D.O., it was stated that it was not a typographical error. (18). In his rejoinder the counsel for the applicant cited RLR 2004 (3), 1998 RRD page 514 and 2001 RRT page 32 to support his locus standi and said that technicalities should not affect the substance of justice. (19). The Counsel for the applicant also read out the section 8(3) of the Minor Guardianship Act when a sale deed made in violation of Section 8 was clearly mentioned as voidable and not void as stated by the counsel for the non-applicant. (20). I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and went through the record and perused the rulings. (21). This was a case in which substantial points of law are involved and a lot of material irregularities seem to have been committed by the subordinate courts. As such it is eminently a case in which an application or mind of re-visionary court is required. AIR 1973 SC Page 76 has laid down the limitation for a court in revision and the only scope available to a court in revision is where material irregularities have been committed or a jurisdiction of a court has clearly been flouted. As such it is eminently a case in which an application or mind of re-visionary court is required. AIR 1973 SC Page 76 has laid down the limitation for a court in revision and the only scope available to a court in revision is where material irregularities have been committed or a jurisdiction of a court has clearly been flouted. The points for adjudication in this particular case are:— i) Whether the applicant has a locus standi ii) Whether the points of limitation ignored by the S.D.O. iii) Whether a sale deed vitiates this case in violation of the provision of Minors and Guardianship Act is void. iv) Whether blatant errors committed by the subordinate court have a bearing on the case. (22). So far as the first two points are concerned, if this court were to go into the details of each one of them, it appears that no justice would be possible. Both the counsel seems to be agreed at least on one point i.e. technicalities need no affect judgement on merits, while counsel for the applicant has relied on RLR 2004 (3) M/s Jaipur Udyog Limited vs. AAIFR (supra). The counsel for the non-applicant has relied on 1998 RRD , page 319 (supra) and 2001 RRD page 546 (supra), and 2002 RRT page 648 (supra). However, ratio of all these cases is that the decision of justice is to be freed from narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law laid down :— "Administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted consideration which are usually associated with a formulated law laid down involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice, which has to determine its form. Principles of justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that maybe adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. The rules of natural justice are intended to prevent the authority from doing injustice. (23). The rules of natural justice are intended to prevent the authority from doing injustice. (23). It is also seen that though the applicants are not recorded khatedars but the recorded khatedar Bhanwar Lal has already been made a party by the non-applicants in the revision Ram Narayan vs. Bhanwar Lal3 and is himself present in the court and it would be a travesty of justice if this application were to be dismissed merely on this ground. By the same logic the ground of limitation having been overlooked by the S.D.O. court needs to be seen in similar light. (24). I, therefore, proceed to analyze the record and arguments on merits. While doing so, I dispose off the second revision against the judgement of S.D.O. under section 151/152 C.P.C. as dismissed for the simple reason that I have decided to dispose of this case on merits. All the errors made accordingly in recording the correct numbers are, therefore, to be overlooked. (25). Now let us discuss the third issue it is clear from the record that the mutation No. 497 was made not by the khatedar but by his father. It was in violation of the Minors and Guardian Act, however, Section 8(3) of the same Act clearly mentions such sale-deed to be voidable at the instance of the minor. Such a suit under Section 88 and 188 and 183 is already pending. (26). Thus it is clear that the S.D.O. could not have rejected the mutation as long as this sale deed had not been declared void by the order of the competent court and it was, therefore, enforced at the time of rejection of the mutation No. 497 by the S.D.O. Secondly, it has been established before this court that Section 42 pertaining to fragmentation has already been rescinded the legislature when decision on the mutation No. 497 was passed. The decision of the S.D.O. therefore, was bad under law. It was not open to the Additional Divisional Commissioner to decide the issue regarding the sale deed when the issue had not been raised at all. (27). This virtually amounts to making a decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the other party and violation of the lines renowned rule of audi altem partem would be manifest. (28). It was not open to the Additional Divisional Commissioner to decide the issue regarding the sale deed when the issue had not been raised at all. (27). This virtually amounts to making a decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the other party and violation of the lines renowned rule of audi altem partem would be manifest. (28). Regarding the fourth issue, the errors committed by the court of S.D.O. and the later post-appeal decided corrections are indeed ludicrous. However, I would not pass any order on this as the revision is already set to succeed on merits. (29). The revision against the order of Additional Divisional Commissioner is accordingly allowed and the orders of the Additional Divisional Commissioner and S.D.O. are set aside. The mutation No. 497 shall remain in force till the fate of the sale deed is not decided by the competent court. (30). As already stated the revision against the decision in 151/152 C.P.C. applications is dismissed. The revision against a decision under Section 212 application is also dismissed on account of admission of possession by the applicant Ram Niwas in the pending suit. Pronounced in the open court.