Honble P. CHANDRA, M.—This is a revision petition filed by plaintiff-petitioner under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the R.T. Act) against the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, (R.A.A.), whereby he stayed the operation of `ad interim injunction order passed by learned Trial Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar. 2. I have heard the learned advocates of both the parties on the point of admission of revision petition and stay application and perused the revision memo and impugned orders of the Courts below. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that petitioners plaintiff filed a suit against the non-petitioner/defendants under Section 53, 88, 188 of the R.T. Act. Alongwith the suit an application under Section 212 of the R.T. Act was also filed for seeking temporary injunction regarding disputed land. Both cases were admitted by the learned Trial Court and an exparatee ad interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff-petitioner and against Non-petitioners/defendants to maintain status qua till next date i.e. 19.8.2008. Notices regarding this case were also ordered to be issued with the direction that if defendants have any objection regarding ad interim injunction, they should file objections on 19.8.2008. Aggrieved by the above order,the non-petitioner/defendants instead of appearing before the Trial Court filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur who admitted the appeal and expartee stayed the operation & effect of the ad interim injunction order passed by learned Trial Court till next date i.e. 22.8.2008. Issurance of notices of the appeal to petitioner-plaintiff were also ordered. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner-plaintiffs have filed this revision petition before this Court. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners states that the impugned order passed by R.A.A. is absolutely against the settled principles of law and natural justice, she contends that R.A.A. has not mentioned a single reason to stay the operation and effect ofthe `ad interim injunction order passed by learned Trial Court.In this situation she apprehends collusion between Non-petitioners and R.A.A. She also contends that in the garb of order of R.A.A., the defendants/non-petitioners are alienating the disputed land. In these circumstances learned advocate request to admit the revision petition and stay/quash the impugned order of R.A.A. 5. In these circumstances learned advocate request to admit the revision petition and stay/quash the impugned order of R.A.A. 5. Learned counsel for non-petitioner contends that since the impugned order is an `interim order no revision can be admitted against such order hence he prays to dismiss the revision petition at this admission stage only. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the contentions raised by the learned advocates. In order to appreciate the factual and legal position of the issue I wish to reproduce the impugned orders of both the learned lower Courts which are as follows:- Premwati & others vs. Ramkhiladi & others : Sub Divisional officer, Nagar - Order sheet dated 24.7.2008. ^^24-7-2008 & lk;y ds vf/koDrk Jh lquhy nRr kekZ ,MoksdsV mifLFkrA lk;yk }kjk ;g izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 212 vkj-Vh- ,DV ds rgr vius ewy okn ds lkFk isk fd;k gSA odhy lk;yk ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dh ,d i{kh; cgl ckcr~ tkjh djus vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk lquh xbZ ,oa izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izLrqr jktLo vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlls izFke n`"V;k izdj.k ,oa lqfo/kk dk lUrqyu izkFkhZ;ku ds i{k esa izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= lk;yk ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj xSj lk;yku dh rych gsrq uksfVl tkjh fd;k tkosA lk;yk ds izkFkZuk i= ij xkSj dj vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk bl vkk; dh tkjh dh tkrh gS fd fnukad 19-8-2008 rd fookfnr vkjkth [kljk ua- 148@0-16] 72@0-04] 117@0-29] 122@0-40] 127@0-16] 146@0-71] 147@0-02] 153@0-37] 254@0-42] 255@0-42] 429@0-47] 496@0-89] 447@0-41 fdrk 13 jdck 5-06 fLFkr xzke ikyrw rglhy uxj dh ekSds ,oa jktLo fjdkMZ dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[ksaA xSj lk;y dks ;fn bl vkKk ds tkjh jgus esa dksbZ vkifRr gks rks os fnukad 19-8-2008 dks U;k;ky; gktk esa mifLFkr gksdj isk djsA i=koyh fnukad 19-8-2008 dks isk gksA** 7. Ramkhiladi & others vs. Premwati & others R.A.A., Bharatpur order sheet dated 29.7.2008:- ^^29-7-2008 vihy ckn tkap fjiksVZ isk gqbZA odhy vihykUV mi-1 fjiksVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vihy ntZ jftLVj dh tk;sa lEeu jsLiks- tkjh gksA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ryc gksA vihy ds lkFk izLrqr izkFkZuki= LFkxr ij odhy vihykUV dh cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA odhy vihykUV ds cgl rdksZ dks ns[krs gq, vknsk fn;k tkrk gS fd vkxkeh fnukad 22-8-2008 rd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 24-7-2008 dh ikyuk LFkfxr j[kh tkosA izkFkZuk i= ds uksfVl tkjh gksA i=koyh fnukad 22-8-2008 dks isk gksA** 8. First of all I would like to deal with the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the non-petitioners that revision should be dismissed at this admission stage as it is against an `ad interim injunction order passed by First Appellate Court. 9. To decide the above controversy it is necessary to mention theprovisions of Sec. 221 & 230 of R.T. Act, 1955 which are as follows: Section 221 of the R.T. Act.- The general superintendence and control over all revenue Courts shall be vested in, and all such Courts shall be subordinate in the Board and subject to such superintendence, control and subordination- (a) xxx (b) all Additional Collectors, Sub-Divisional Officers, Assistant Collectors and Tehsildars in a district shall be subordinate to the Collector thereof. (c) all Assistant Collectors, Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars in a sub-division shall be subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer thereof. (d) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars in a tehsil shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof. 10. Section 230 of the R.T. Act- Power of the Board to call for cases:- The Board may call for the period of any case decided by any subordinate revenue Court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a Civil Court under Section 230 and if such Court appears- (a) to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or- (b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have cited in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 11. It is true that there are rulings which lays down the principle that since an ad interim injunction order does not come in the category of case decided hence no revision is maintainable against such order. Such rulings have been submitted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner/defendant in support of this contention relied on my judgment in Panchhi & others vs. Anjana & others 2008(2) RRT 947, I have perused the judgment and I find that case Learned Revenue Appellate Authority refused to grant any interim stay against the rejection of petitioners application under Section 212 of the R.T. Act by the Trial Court. That interim order was held to be legal order and unworthy of any interference by this Court in the above judgment. That interim order was held to be legal order and unworthy of any interference by this Court in the above judgment. The facts & circumstances of the present case are totally different and opposite hence cited ruling cannot be of any help of the non-petitioners. 13. It is also true that there are catena of decisions which lays down the principle that any order of subordinate Court which occasions a failur of justice or is likely to cause irreparable injury to a litigant is revisable. 14. In Surender Pal Singh vs. Revenue Board & Others 1993 RRD 598, Honble Supreme Court has held "Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Sections 221, 225, 230 Subordination of Revenue Courts- Powers of Board of Revenue-Whether the powers of Board extend to the regulation of functioning of subordinate Courts? Held, yes, if the sub-ordinate Court disregards any specific provision of law and does something illegal it is open to the Board of Revenue to interfere and set the matter right. The power vested in both administrative as well as judicial." Board may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. 15. Chitalely in his commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure, 9th edition, Volume 2 at page 520 has conculded that interlocutory or interim orders of the nature of below category have been interfered by Honble High Courts. (1) Where the effect of the order was to cause a multiplicity of litigation or to prolong the trial. (2) Where there is a patent irregularity in procedure. (3) Where the effect of the order is to cause unnecessary delay or expense. (4) Where the order passed is perverse or such that unless set aside, irreparable harm is likely to be caused to one of the litigants. (5) Where the effect of the order is to make the trial take an illegal course. (6) Where the order works manifest injustice. 16. In view of the above mentioned legal principles, I hold that Section 230 read with Section 221 of the R.T. Act gives the power to this Board to admit any revision against an order of Trial Court or First Appellate Court which has been passed by exceeding the jurisdiction vested in them and in disregard of established principles of law & procedure or principles of natural justice. 17. 17. To my mind, the present case clearly falls in the above categories mentioned in para 13, 14, 15 & 16 hence, I respectfully disagreewith the preliminary contention of learned counsel for the non-petitioner that this revision petition cannot be admitted by this Court as it is nt against a `case decided. Rather it is a fit case to be admitted. 18. Now coming back to the legality of the impugned order, it is clear from the impugned orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that on one date i.e. 24.7.2008 the Trial Court applying its mind thought proper to issue `ad interim injunction against defendants to maintain status quo with regard to disputed land till next date 19.8.2008 but defendants on knowing about the above order, instead of appearing before the Trial Court filed appeal before the Appellate Court (which they could file as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in Uma Ram vs. Panna 1985 RRD page 352) and the Appellate Court on the very first date of presentation of appeal on 29.7.2007 exparteely stayed the operation and effect of the ad interim injunction order issued by learned Trial Court. It is neteworthy that the appellate authority while staying the operation & effect of ad interim injunction did not even give a thought to hear plaintiffs and than stay the ad interim stay order existing in their favour. It is also noteworthy that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has not mentioned a single reason for passing the impugned order. Due to the impugned order, the defendants non petitioners have been granted licence/permission to change or alienate the status of disputed land physically and in records. In the garb of impugned order of R.A.A. if defendants non-petitioners decides to alienate or change the status of the disputed land than definately plaintiff petitioners may have to face irreparable injury. This may also give birth to numerous legal complications as also increase litigations. 19. In the above circumstances I come to the conclusion that learned First Appellate Court (Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur) has (a) exceeded jurisdiction vested in him. (b) abused/misused powers vested in him. (c) unnecessarily interfeared in the Trial Courts functioning. (d) unnecessarily and without any reason stayed the effect and operation of a balanced and legal order of the Trial Court. (e) unnecessarily showed favour towards defendants-non-petitioners and biasness against petitioners plaintiffs. (b) abused/misused powers vested in him. (c) unnecessarily interfeared in the Trial Courts functioning. (d) unnecessarily and without any reason stayed the effect and operation of a balanced and legal order of the Trial Court. (e) unnecessarily showed favour towards defendants-non-petitioners and biasness against petitioners plaintiffs. (f) created legal complications by passing impugned order. (g) granted licence to defendants to disturb the status of the disputed land or to get the record changed or to alienate the portions of disputed land. 20. Such inaction of the Appellate Court is deplorable and condemanable. Balanced, legal and mature orders are expected from all officers doing judicial work especially from the appellate authorities because of their long experience. A possibility cannot be ruled out that orders like the impugned orders may send wrong message in the society. Such orders may creat new rights to third parties. 21. All Courts are expected to know that natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied intercities of the status, unless there is clear mandate to the contrary. 22. In view of whatever has been discussed above I find force in the contentions and objections raised by learned Counsel of petitioner plaintiff that the impugned order is against the principles of legal and natural justice. This order has been passed in disregard to the basic principles of laws. In this situation I wish to accept the revision petition at the admission stage itself since both the parties are represented by their advocates and have argued their case than there is no reason to keep the case pending for further arguments and decision. 23. Before concluding for final orders I wish to state that identical type of revision petitions have come before me in the past and were decided by me also. Many identical revisions may be pending in the Board which small come up for hearing before different benches. 23. Before concluding for final orders I wish to state that identical type of revision petitions have come before me in the past and were decided by me also. Many identical revisions may be pending in the Board which small come up for hearing before different benches. In order to check such abuse of process of law or abuse of power or abuse of exceeding of jurisdiction, I wish to lay down certain precautions for the learned subordinate & appellate Courts which are as follows:- (a) whenever an application under Section 212 of the R.T. Act for temporary injunction is filed along with the suit & if Trial Court issued any ad interim injunction order exparate against defendants that such applications must be finally as per law at the earliest. Court should also monitor issuing and serving of the notice/process on the defendants-non-petitioners. (b) whenever an appeal against an an interim injunction order issued by Trial Court is filed before any Appellate Court, while admitting it as far as possible first issue notices of such appeal to the respondents and after their appearance hear both the parties on the point of admission of appeal and vacation of interim order than pass a well reasoned legal order. This procedure can be ommitted only if such order is passed arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or against the settled principle of law by the Trial Court. (c) The Appellate Court should be show in disturbing the Trial Court discretionary ad interim injunction order unless there are strong legal reasons to do so which would be mentioned in the order. (d) The Appellate Court may also consider to direct the appellants to give their appearance before Trial Court and file their objections so that the Trial Court can itself consider to vacate the ad interim injunction order or to amend it or confirm it. 24. In the result, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur dated 29.7.2008 is hereby quashed and matter is remanded back to learned R.A.A. to hear both the parties on the merits of the appeal and pass a well reasoned, logical and legal order. In the interest of justice I feel to bound both parties to mention status quo is relation with the disputed land till disposal of original application under Section 212 of the R.T. Act before the Trial Court. 25. In the interest of justice I feel to bound both parties to mention status quo is relation with the disputed land till disposal of original application under Section 212 of the R.T. Act before the Trial Court. 25. Both the parties are also directed to remain present in the original case pending before the Trial Court on 9.9.2008 and before the Appellate Court on 11.9.2008. 26. Copy of this order be set to both the Courts concerned and if approved by Honble Chairman to all the Revenue Courts of the State for compliance, information and necessary action. 27. Judgment pronounced in the open Court.