JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The sole-plaintiff late Shri Chatra Dhakar, instituted a revenue suit under Sections 88, 89, 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the S.D.O. Nainwa. The defendants appeared and filed their written-statements, but subsequently they did not appear in the proceedings before the trial Court, therefore, an ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared the plaintiff, as recorded tenant of the disputed land and directed the Revenue Authority to enter his name in the Revenue Record. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and declared that the plaintiff as well as defendants, who are five-sons of Shri Kastoora, are entitled to ⅕th share, each in the disputed property and all the five-persons were declared, as recorded tenants of ⅕th share of the disputed land. The defendants namely; Beja, Harnath and Prahlad filed second appeal before the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board allowed the appeal in part, and while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as S.D.O., remanded the matter to the S.D.O. Nainwa to decide the suit afresh after hearing both the parties and affording an opportunity to them to lead their evidence in the case. Being aggrieved with the order of the Revenue Board, the plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Revenue Board committed an illegality in setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below, as there was no need for the trial Court to frame issue in the present case, as no evidence was led on behalf of the defendants. He further contended that the Revenue Board committed an illegality in affording an opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence in the present case, which was rightly closed, therefore, the judgment passed by the Revenue Board is liable to be set aside. 4. He further contended that the Revenue Board committed an illegality in affording an opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence in the present case, which was rightly closed, therefore, the judgment passed by the Revenue Board is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defendants appeared in the trial Court and filed their written-statements, and in case they did not appear before the trial Court subsequently then at least, it was a duty of the trial Court to frame issue in the case and to decide the same issue-wise, whereas in the present case, the trial court did not frame any issue and simply decreed the suit for declaration. He further contended that the Revenue Board has not decided the case on merits, but has remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the case afresh in accordance with the law. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Revenue Board and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgments passed by all the Courts below. 6. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction and division in respect of disputed property. The defendants filed their written-statements. The trial Court passed a decree in respect of declaration and plaintiff was declared, as recorded tenant. The Appellate Court while deciding the appeal did not formulate any points for determination in the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court and declared that all the four appellants and the respondent no.1, are entitled to be declared, as recorded tenants of ⅕th share, each in the disputed property. The Revenue Board considered the entire matter and observed that after filing written-statements by the defendants, it was a duty of the trial Court to frame issues in the case and to decide the case issue-wise. It was also observed that it was necessary for the Appellate Court to formulate the points for determination in the appeal, as required under Order 41 Rule 31, C.P.C., and also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar & Others v. Sangram & Others, reported in R.B.J. (8) 2001 Page 603 . It was also observed that it was necessary for the Appellate Court to formulate the points for determination in the appeal, as required under Order 41 Rule 31, C.P.C., and also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar & Others v. Sangram & Others, reported in R.B.J. (8) 2001 Page 603 . The Revenue Board, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and remanded the matter for afresh decision of the case to the trial Court. 7. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the reasons assigned by the Revenue Board in its judgment dated 30.06.2004, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Revenue Board, which may require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgment passed by the Revenue Board is absolutely in accordance with the provisions of law and the case has rightly been remitted to the trial Court for afresh decision in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. There is no merit in any of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, with no order as to costs. 9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the S.D.O. Nainwa on 24th April, 2008.Writ petition dismissed. *******