Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—Since both the petitions arises out of two interim orders passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision 3560/2007 as such heard together and are being disposed of by the present order. 2. It appears from the record that the petitioner sold the land in question by registered sale deed to M/s. Miraj Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 20.9.2010 and pursuant thereto mutation was also opened in favour of the purchaser on 17.3.2011 (Annex. 3). However, the proceedings were initially initiated by one executive board of the Methodist Church in India before the Additional Collector, Ajmer u/S. 75 of the Land Revenue Act, and pursuant thereto the proceedings arises came before the Board of Revenue and after hearing counsel for the parties an interim order was passed on 23.12.2010 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. However, it further appears that after the order of status-quo being passed by the learned Board of Revenue it was not complied with as such further application was filed u/Ord. 39 R. 2A CPC. However, before taking any further action in the matter the learned Board of Revenue vide its order dt. 16.8.2011 directed that whatever the transaction have taken place after passing of the first interim order on 23.12.2010 both the parties are restrained and position existing on the date of passing of the first interim order shall be restored and maintained by the parties and the later order dt. 16.8.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner in connected petition (CWP-12286/2011) and the petitioner has sold its property by registered sale deed on 20.9.2010 and possession has been transferred in favour of the purchaser who has not approached to the Court if aggrieved by either of the interim order passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. The main thrust of submission of the counsel is that petitioner being a necessary party in the proceedings initiated and pending before the Board of Revenue, in absence whereof the very interim orders passed on 23.12.2010 and the lateron order dt. 16.8.2011 are wholly without jurisdiction and for as present petitioner is concerned both the interim orders passed are in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. It has been admitted by counsel for petitioner that no such application has been filed before the Revisional Authority by the present petitioner if at all aggrieved by the interim orders for impleadment u/Ord. 16.8.2011 are wholly without jurisdiction and for as present petitioner is concerned both the interim orders passed are in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. It has been admitted by counsel for petitioner that no such application has been filed before the Revisional Authority by the present petitioner if at all aggrieved by the interim orders for impleadment u/Ord. 1 R. 10 CPC or if there is any other corresponding provision available under law and in support of submission placed reliance upon the judgment in Udit Narain Singh vs. Board of Revenue (AIR 1963 Supreme Court) 786. 5. There cannot be any quarrel so far as settled proposition of law is concerned that opportunity of hearing is to be afforded before any adverse order being passed against the party who is affected by the proceedings but in the instant case the petitioner as alleged had sold the property much before the interim order came to be passed by the Board of Revenue on 23.12.2010 by a registered sale deed more so mutation has also been opened in favour of the purchaser on 17.3.2011 but if the petitioner is at all aggrieved on account of the interim order impugned being passed by the Board of Revenue certainly was at liberty to file application before the Board of Revenue for impleadment, in absence whereof what is being contended by the petitioner that the orders have been passed behind his back cannot be considered by this Court in absence of proceedings being initiated by him, if so advised, before the authority of whom orders he has grievance. 6. Consequently, this Court does not find any substance in both these petitions which accordingly stand dismissed.