JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.2.2001 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4232/1999, this appeal is preferred. 2. By the judgment impugned, the learned Single Bench accepted the writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan questioning correctness of the judgments dated 27.12.1997 and 2.7.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 3. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the land in question was 'Jagir' land and that was resumed by the State as per provisions of the Jagir Resumption Act. Compensation was also awarded in favour of Math Shri Garibnath Ji. After resumption, the land was shown as Government Land in revenue records and the petitioner's predecessors were shown as tenant. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Board of Revenue arrived at the conclusion that the land is not owned by Deity but by the tenant. The learned Single Bench as per learned counsel of the appellant without affording any opportunity to the appellant accepted the writ petition. It is asserted that the writ petition was listed before the Court on 7.2.2001 and on that day counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant respondent tenant sought time to file reply to the writ petition but the Court decided the matter on merits by examining the judgments passed by the Board of Revenue. According to learned counsel if an opportunity would have been given, the petitioner would have established the fact that the land in question is not a Deity land. Certain documents in support of this fact have been filed by the appellant as per provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure. 4. From perusal of record of Single Bench it is apparent that at the first instance the matter was listed before the Court on 25.10.1999 and the Court was pleased to issue notice and subsequent thereto the matter came up before the Court on 25.11.2000. On that day matter was adjourned for a period of two weeks. The matter then came up before the Single Bench on 7.2.2001 and the writ petition was accepted by Single Bench. No reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents (present appellant). 5. On that day matter was adjourned for a period of two weeks. The matter then came up before the Single Bench on 7.2.2001 and the writ petition was accepted by Single Bench. No reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents (present appellant). 5. From perusal of the order-sheets we are satisfied that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to file reply to the writ petition and to place on record relevant documents. In our opinion the documents placed on record along with application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure are having relevance for adjudication of the issue in question, however, instead of accepting the application, we deem it appropriate to remand this matter to learned Single Bench for adjudication of the writ petition afresh. The appellant respondent shall file reply to the writ petition expeditiously as far as possible within a period of 15 days from today. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.