Honble SHARMA, J.—The State of Rajasthan, petitioner herein, seeks to quash order dated October 6, 1993 of the Board of Revenue Ajmer whereby reference made to it by Additional District Collector Kota under section 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 1955 Act) was answered in negative. (2). Contextual facts depicts that the Assistant Collector Kota decreed suit No. 2/1981 filed by plaintiff respondent and the judgment and decree rendered in that case had attained finality since they were never assailed in any manner. It is after a lapse of 10 years an order dated October 24,1991 was passed whereby the Assistant Collector Kota sought dismissal of the judgment and decree passed in the year 1981 by making reference under section 232 of the 1955 Act. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (4). Proviso appended to Section 232 of 1955 Act provides that powers conferred under the said section shall not be exercised in respect of suits or proceedings falling within the purview of section 239. Section 232 reads as under:— "232. Power to call for record and refer to the Board.—The Collector may call for and examine the record of any case or proceedings decided by or pending before any revenue court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order or decree passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings, and, if he is of opinion that the order or decree passed or the proceeding taken by such court should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall, thereupon, pass such orders as it thinks fit: Provided that the power conferred by this section shall not be exercised in respect of suits or proceedings falling within the purview of section 239." It was therefore incumbent on the Assistant Collector to examine whether the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was within the purview of section 239 or not. Besides this there should have been satisfactory explanation for the exercise of powers under section 232 after a lapse of 10 years. Since powers under section 232 were exercised arbitrarily, the Board of Revenue was right in answering the Reference in negative. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. (5). Besides this there should have been satisfactory explanation for the exercise of powers under section 232 after a lapse of 10 years. Since powers under section 232 were exercised arbitrarily, the Board of Revenue was right in answering the Reference in negative. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. (5). The writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.