JUDGMENT : Mr. Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. In I.A. No. 40235 of 2012: 1. The matter comes up on an interim application (40235/2012) under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, with a prayer to take on record the legal heirs of petitioner No.4-Kulwant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pending the proceedings, while the judgment was reserved before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan; the petitioner No.4-Kulwant S/o Mulakraj, died on 14th September, 2012, and therefore, the petitioners filed an application along with the writ application, with a prayer to take on record the legal representatives of petitioner No.4- Kulwant. 3. For the reasons assigned in the application and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties so also taking note of the fact that the prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents as well as having regard to the nature of controversy involved herein; the application merits acceptance. 4. Consequently, the application (40235/2012) is hereby allowed. 5. Ameded cause title, enclosed with the application (40235/2012), shall be taken on record and arranged at the appropriate place in the record of the case file. In I.A. No. 29613 of 2016: 6. The matter comes up on an interim application (29613/2016) under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 29th January, 2013. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Indisputably, the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, was being contested by the parties. Issues were framed on 15th June ,1999. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed the affidavits of his witnesses, he intended to produce in support of his claim, along with his affidavit, in evidence. 9. While the matter was due for further proceedings for cross-examination, the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, made the order dated 24th January, 2007, without recording evidence of the parties on the affidavits and affording an opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. 10. On an appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, affirmed the order dated 24th January, 2007, declining the appeal on 2nd July, 2008. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, also declined interference. It is, thus, the matter has spiraled up to this Court in the instant writ application. 11. 10. On an appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, affirmed the order dated 24th January, 2007, declining the appeal on 2nd July, 2008. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, also declined interference. It is, thus, the matter has spiraled up to this Court in the instant writ application. 11. For there was no opportunity allowed to the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiff-respondent as well as his witnesses; therefore, the petitioners have raised a serious grievance as to the proper adjudication on the ‘Sanad’ that was allegedly issued in the name of predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. 12. In view of the admitted position; ends of justice would be served, if the matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, to proceed with the matter from the stage of framing of the issues and allow the parties to lead evidence, in accordance with law. 13. However, since the matter is quite old; the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, is directed to decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented. 14. Accordingly, the writ proceedings as well as stay application stand disposed off. 15. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, on 26th September, 2016. 16. Till then, the parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today. Write Petition Dismissed of as above.