1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner against the order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Udhampur with powers of Agr. Reforms Commissioner, by virtue of which he has remanded the case to Tehsildar for denovo enquiry. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, he is brother of respondents and is in possession of land measuring 22 kanals under khasra no. 56, 57 and 58 at village Madha Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur. That a mutation no. 1594 has already been attested in his favour 0n 12.12.2003. That respondent no. 1 unnecessarily and without any basis has dragged the petitioner in a false litigation by filing appeal before Agrarian reform commissioner and on this Tehsildar was directed to hold enquiry with regard to possession and cultivation of the petitioner. Tehsildar during enquiry recorded statements of respondents and attested the mutation no. 1594 on 12.12.2003 in presence of other witnesses. Respondent no; 1 again filed appeal and 25.3.2004 and it was decided on 18.10.2007. 3. The Court below has again remanded the case to Tehsildar Chenani for fresh enquiry in presence of parties. 4. Petitioner has stated in revision that, order of Court below is not based on facts. That Court below has committed a great irregularity. That remand after remand in view of case is not sustainable. 5. I have heard counsel for petitioner at length and also perused the records. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has elaborated all the grounds taken in revision petition and has categorically argued that, in present case remand was no required. 7. Brief facts as are evident from record, are that petitioner and respondents are brothers. A Sehat indraj mutation no. 1594 dt. on 12. 12. 2003 was attested in favour of petitioner with regard to land measuring 22 kanals under khasra no. 56,57 and 58 of village Madha tehsil chenani on remand order passed by ADD. Deputy commissioner Udhampur. Billu,brother of petitioner challenged the same before Court below on 25.3.2004, in appeal. Court below accepted the appeal and remanded the case to Tehsildar on the ground that, Tehsildar has not visited on spot for ascertaining spot position and calling any factual report from patwari and girdawari. 8. I have gone through revision petition; it is not accompanied with certified copy. 9. Court below accepted the appeal and remanded the case to Tehsildar on the ground that, Tehsildar has not visited on spot for ascertaining spot position and calling any factual report from patwari and girdawari. 8. I have gone through revision petition; it is not accompanied with certified copy. 9. Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules reads as under:- Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules--Every memorandum of petition shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against. A plain reading of Rule 11 of Special Tribunal Rules, it is evident that, every petition should be accompanied with one certified copy of order impugned, which has not been done in the present case. 10. However, Rule 12 gives discretion to Tribunal to accept a petition which is not accompanied by any or all documents referred in Rule-11. In the present case this court has not dispensed with for annexing certified copy at the time of filling of revision petition, as no application was filled. So this revision is not maintainable on this point. 11. Next, this tribunal constituted under special tribunal act, derives power of revision under section 21(2) of agrarian reform act 1976. It reads as under:- (1) Any person aggrieved by a final order of a Collector or a Revenue Officer of a class lower than that of a Collector may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area to which the appeal relates. (2) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit; Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard. 12. Bare perusal of this section, it is clear that revisional jurisdiction of Special Tribunal is exercisable to examine a matter involving question of law or of public importance, after a final order is passed by appellate authority. 12. Bare perusal of this section, it is clear that revisional jurisdiction of Special Tribunal is exercisable to examine a matter involving question of law or of public importance, after a final order is passed by appellate authority. Order arrived after appreciating facts emerging during the course of proceeding before court below, cannot be re-appreciated, unless order is perverse in nature. 13. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. It relates to determination of what is law, how it is applied to facts of case. It is purely legal in contention. 14. In present case counsel for Petitioner, has failed to point out any question of law or of public importance involved in case. General and factual averments have been made in memo of revision petition. Finding of court below is based on facts and as per law, it cannot be disturbed in revision, unless finding of court below is perverse in nature. Counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in order impugned. 15. Any remand order passed by a court is not revisable, unless court lacks inherent jurisdiction or order is passed against well settled principal law. Remand order passed after appreciating facts of case and law applicable, is always considered as interlocutory order, against which revision is not maintainable under law. 16. Further in present case, by remanding the matter to Tehsildar, court below has not decided any final legal rights of any parties as matter is still alive. Any party aggrieved of order of remand court, has remedy to approach higher forum under law. 17. Petitioner has liberty to raise all facts and law points, before remand court. 18. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is not maintainable and thus dismissed. File of court below is sent back along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record after due compilation. 19. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion