JUDGMENT 1. - Both the petitions at joint request since arises out of self-same subject land were heard together and are being disposed of by present order. 2. CWP-9581/2007 Sheonath & Ors v. Damodar & Ors is directed against order dated 20/08/2007 passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. As alleged, regarding Khasra No. 181/1 measuring 15 bighas of agricultural land situated vt aillge Ram-Agawali Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Suit No. 49/1999 seeking permanent injunction was filed by respondents (Damodar & Ors) against petitioners (Sheonath & Ors) before Assistant Collector (II), Dausa Camp at Sikrai, which came to be decreed vide judgment dated 31/03/2001. 4. It is relevant to record that pendente revenue suit, plaintiff-4 (Rameshwar) & Kana (defendant-11) died; however, their legal representatives were not brought on record by the time the suit was decreed on 31/03/2011 against present petitioners preferred appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority ("RAA"), which came to be allowed and the findings of revenue court was reversed by RAA holding that the suit itself was not maintainable since plaintiffs were not in possession on the date of filing of the suit and at the same time, it was observed that since the parties to the proceedings died pendent lis and their L/rs were not brought on record, proceedings qua deceased parties, stood abated; however, on appeal being preferred before the Board of Revenue, the order of RAA was set aside and the finding of Revenue court was upheld vide judgment dated 20/08/2007. Hence instant petition. 5. As a matter of record, at the time when petitioners filed appeal before RAA, proper steps were taken for bringing L/rs of respective parties who died pendent revenue suit and that has been taken note of. However, suit-31/2007 seeking declaration was also filed by present petitioners before SDO Sikrai (Dausa) which was ex parte decreed vide judgment dated 23/04/2007. However, present respondents filed application (No. 3/2010) under Order 9, Rule 13 , Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree dated 23/04/2007, which, as informed, is pending and has not been decided by SDO so far. 6. However, present respondents filed application (No. 3/2010) under Order 9, Rule 13 , Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree dated 23/04/2007, which, as informed, is pending and has not been decided by SDO so far. 6. Counsel for petitioners submits that the respondent-plaintiff was not holding possession on the date of filing of revenue suit and there was no material placed on record which could justify reversal of the finding recorded by RAA regarding possession over subject land in question and once the parties died pendent suit before revenue court, it was all the more necessary for respondents to take proper steps to bring L/rs of the deceased parties on record in absence whereof, proceedings qua deceased parties stood abated but that has not been examined by the Board of Revenue in right perspective and the provisions referred to by the Board of Revenue are not applicable in the facts & circumstances of instant case. 7. Counsel further submits that the Board of Revenue has recorded finding of possession merely on the basis of registered sale deed dated 20/03/1985, which was not supported by any documentary evidence on record, in absence whereof, finding recorded by Board of Revenue in regard to possession over the subject land is wholly perverse and requires interference. 8. Pere contra, Counsel for respondents supported the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue being duly corroborated by material on record and does not call for interference. 9. 8. Pere contra, Counsel for respondents supported the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue being duly corroborated by material on record and does not call for interference. 9. However, ultimate fact having remained on record is that one of plaintiffs (Rameshwar) and defendants (Kana) died pendent revenue suit whose L/rs were also not brought on record by the time the decree was passed by Revenue court and in absence whereof, the suit could not have been decreed vide judgment dated 31/03/2001; but indisputably, when the appeal was preferred by present petitioners before RAA, obviously it was taken note of while impleading bringing L/rs of deceased parties on record but that will not cure the defect having remained in the original suit and taking note of other material having come on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and in the interest of justice, this Court considers it appropriate that orders of the RAA & the Board of Revenue and so also of the Assistant Collector deserve to be set aside and L/rs of Rameshwar (plaintiff-4) and Kana (defendant-11) deserves to be brought on record in original suit-49/1999, which deserves to be heard afresh in accordance with law and at the same time, suit for declaration filed by petitioners which was ex parte decreed on 23/04/2007 in regard to which, application has been filed by present respondents under Order 9, Rule 13 , CPC deserves to be heard along with present revenue suit. 10. Consequently, CWP-9581/2007 Sheonath & Ors v. Damodar & Ors is allowed and the orders dated 31/03/2001 (Ann.1), (ACM, Sikrai) dated 18/06/2004 (Ann.2) (RAA), dated 20/08/2007 (BOR, Ajmer) are hereby set aside and revenue suit-49/1999 is restored and the matter is remanded back to the SDM Sikrai (Dausa) where the plaintiff will be at liberty to bring L/rs of plaintiff (Rameshwar) & defendant (Kana) on record who died pendent revenue suit and the Revenue Court may hear the suit afresh along with application-3/2010 filed by present respondents for re-calling & setting aside ex parte decree dated 23/04/2007 passed in revenue suit-31/2007 and decide in accordance with law. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Court on 09/01/2012. It is expected from the revenue court to decide both the matters expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Court on 09/01/2012. It is expected from the revenue court to decide both the matters expeditiously in accordance with law. However, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today till disposal of Revenue suit-49/1999 & Misc. Appl. -3/2010. No costs. 12. As a consequence of what has been directed (supra) & on account of changed circumstances, Shri Ajay Kr. Bajpai, Counsel for respondents (in CWP-9581/2007) on instructions, does not press CWP-7753/2008, which accordingly stands dismissed.Suit Restored - Case Remanded. *******