TIWARI, M.—This is a review petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 8.7.02 of learned Single Bench of this Court passed in Revision /LR/32/02/Jalore. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to this review petition are that the petitioner had earlier filed a revision petition under Section 84 of the Act before this Court against the judgment dated 27.5.02 of Divisional Commissioner passed in second appeal under section 76 of the Act whereby the appeal was dismissed and judgment dated 9.1.01 of District Collector Jalore passed in first appeal under Section 75 of the Act was upheld. The learned Single Bench of this Court held that when regular suits between both the parties were pending before competent civil Court as well as revenue Court, their dispute cannot be resolved through summary and fiscal proceeding of mutation which is being agitated in this Court. Therefore, the revision directed against the concurrent judgments of first and second appellate Courts below was rejected in limine by the impugned judgment which is sought to be reviewed and rescinded through this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the disputed land was earlier sold to the petitioner and later on it was again sold to the non-petitioners but the mutation was attested in favour of the non-petitioners rather than in favour of the petitioner who had purchased the disputed land before hand. So the mutation was wrongly attested and the appeals were illegally rejected. Even revision petition was also illegally rejected, as under Section 84 of the Act a revision petition cannot be rejected without calling for the records of the lower courts. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the petitioner, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the case file. 6. The main plea of the petitioner seeking review of the impugned judgment is that revision petition was rejected even without calling for the record of the lower courts. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the petitioner, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the case file. 6. The main plea of the petitioner seeking review of the impugned judgment is that revision petition was rejected even without calling for the record of the lower courts. In this regard it is stated that section 84 of the Act provides for the power of Board who may call for the record of the lower court when it appears to the Board that the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have illegally exercised jurisdiction or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. This is purely discretion of the court whether to call for the record of the lower court or no. If it appears to the court that the court below has not exercised jurisdiction illegally or acted illegally or with material irregularity, it is not bound to call for the record. 7. In the instant case, when there were regular suits between the rival parties pending adjudication before both civil Court as well as revenue court, the intricate aspect of the matter in controversy cannot be resolved through attestation of any mutation which is summary and fiscal proceeding. So this Court rightly dismissed the revision petition in limine. There is no error apparent on the face of record while passing the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has not brought out any matter of fact or evidence which could not be produced before the court despite due diligence before passing of the impugned judgment to necessitate carrying out of the review. As such this matter is not covered under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for undertaking review of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has tried to re-argue afresh the revision petition which stands already decided by the impugned judgment. As such this review petition is not maintainable. 8. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed in limine. Pronounced.