JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition is directed against order dated 03/08/2009 (Ann.5) passed by SDO Bassi (Jaipur) accepting application filed by plaintiff U/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay in filing appeal. 2. Before the matter could proceed, revision petition was filed by petitioner before the Board of Revenue U/s 230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act; that came to be dismissed vide order dated 30/08/2010 (Ann.8) against which review petition was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 27/06/2011 (Ann.10). 3. It is relevant to record that respondent-3 is a widow of Narain, and as alleged, she was residing with her nephew Bhoriya who was issue less and after his death, she being an illiterate lady, it has been alleged that application was got signed from her with the bonafide belief that it has to be processed for recording mutation entry in her name and she was not aware at what point of time, mutation was opened on 17/06/1989 (Ann.1) in the name of petitioner who claims to be adopted son of Bhorya and when this fact came to her notice, appeal came to be filed by her assailing mutation (Ann.1) on 04/07/2008 and reasons were also assigned for the delay in filing appeal. After notice being served of the appeal preferred by respondent-3, petitioner filed detailed reply to the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. However, taking note of submissions made and also the fact that she being illiterate lady and none was there to give her legal advise and the mutation was opened on 17/06/1989 behind her back and it never came to her notice at any stage, and in totality of the facts on record, the Revenue Court being satisfied with the reasons for the delay, considered it appropriate to accept the application Us 5 of the Limitation Act vide order dated 03/08/2009 (Ann.5) and obviously after condoning the delay having caused in filing the appeal and the matter was to be processed on merits. 5. But it appears that more than two years have rolled by now but on account of revision petition being filed by petitioner before the Board of Revenue, the record must have been summoned and because of its pendency, no progress in the appeal preferred by the widow has taken place. 5. But it appears that more than two years have rolled by now but on account of revision petition being filed by petitioner before the Board of Revenue, the record must have been summoned and because of its pendency, no progress in the appeal preferred by the widow has taken place. However, revision petition preferred by petitioner and review petition came to be dismissed on 30/08/2010 and 27/06/2010. 6. Counsel submits that revision petition preferred by petitioner was rejected on the premise that revision petition against interlocutory order was not maintainable U/s 84A of Land Revenue Act whereas petitioner preferred revision petition U/s 230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, that being so, it was an apparent error on the face of record while rejecting the revision petition and the review petition was rejected on the premise that this cannot be considered to be an apparent error which may call for interference. 7. Submission made by Counsel is wholly without substance for the reason that the Revenue Court in its order while accepting application U/s 5 of Limitation Act has assigned cogent reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. This Court would also like to record the fact which has been taken note of vide order impugned that the widow is illiterate lady and at one point of time, she was residing with her nephew Bhoriya and application was got signed by her for opening mutation in her name but at a later point of time, it came to her notice that mutation entry has been open in the name of the petitioner claiming himself to be alleged adopted son of Bhoria who happens to be elder son of brother of the deceased (Bhoriya) and taking note of these facts, learned Revenue Court accepted application U/s 5 of Limitation Act. This Court does not find any manifest error being committed in taking decision while condoning the delay in filing the appeal by respondent-3. 8. This Court does not find any manifest error being committed in taking decision while condoning the delay in filing the appeal by respondent-3. 8. Further submission made in regard to rejection of revision petition on the premise of it being not maintainable on having been filed U/S 84A of Land Revenue Act against interlocutory order while petitioner preferred revision petition U/s 230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, is also without substance for the reason that the Board of Revenue while examining question of limitation was prima facie of the view that order passed by the Revenue Court did not require any interference; and that apart, submission has been recorded but it was not the only consideration which prevailed upon the court below to reject revision petition and in the opinion of this Court, there appears to be no apparent error in the order impugned that requires interference. 9. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made (supra) will not adversely affect either of the parties while the matter being finally adjudicated by courts below.Petition dismissed. *******