Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Since parties in both the appeals are same and both the appeals are directed against common order of Single Bench, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order. 3. Both the intra-Court appeals are directed against the common order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Single Bench, whereby the writ petitions, filed by petitioner/appellant, have been dismissed. 4. A suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 53, 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed, wherein petitioner was party and a notice was issued to him. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 20.11.1995 and thereafter final decree was also passed on 02.02.1996. 5. Appellant preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority in the year 2007, that is, with a delay of almost 11 years along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority was not satisfied with the cause shown for delay of 11 years in filing the appeal and consequently, dismissed the application and also the appeal, being barred by limitation. The Revenue Board affirmed the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved with the same, writ petitions were preferred by the appellant before the Single Bench, which have been dismissed. 6. The only submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that since decree passed by the Revenue/trial Court was void ab-initio, therefore, delay in filing the appeal should not have come in the way and a liberal view should have been taken in condoning the delay, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Revenue Board as well as Single Bench committed an illegality in dismissing the appeals/writ petitions of petitioner. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant. 8. The decree was passed in the year 1996 and appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority in the year 2007. Learned counsel for appellant has not disputed that there was a delay of about 11 years in filing the appeal. It is not the case of petitioner that he was not issued with a notice of the suit. He was a party and written statement was also filed. Appellant was aware about the present litigation. Learned counsel for appellant has not disputed that there was a delay of about 11 years in filing the appeal. It is not the case of petitioner that he was not issued with a notice of the suit. He was a party and written statement was also filed. Appellant was aware about the present litigation. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board came to a conclusion that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 11 years in filing the appeal. Arguments, which have been advanced before us, were advanced before the learned Single Judge also. 9. From the order of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that all the submissions of appellant have been considered, in detail, and they were negatived by a detailed and speaking order. We are satisfied that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petitions are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for. 10. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay applications also stand dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected file.