JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Sarin for the caveator. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 15.7.2016 by which revision was allowed, order of trail court dated 6.2.2016 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court to decide the points relating to maintainability of the suit after obtaining report from Tehsildar within a period of three months and the parties were directed to maintain status quo till 12.8.2016. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the caveator that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands inasmuch as they have filed a report of Lekhpal dated 14.9.2015 as Annexure -16 to the writ petition by making interpolation in it. The report was filed in the court on 3.10.2015 and the court has made an endorsement in the margin of the report for taking the report on record but the endorsement made by the court dated 3.10.2015 was rubbed out in order to show that report was submitted on 14.9.2015 although actually it was filed in the court on 3.10.2015. 4. I have considered the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the caveator. The petitioners filed an application in this respect before the trial court on 22.9.2015 in which he has mentioned that in view of report the issue relating to jurisdiction of revenue court to try the suit be decided. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in this application and a perusal of the counter affidavit shows that they had denied the allegation relating to Lekhpal's report as relied upon by the petitioners in the application dated 22.9.2015. Thus in substance the allegation was that although the report was filed on 3.10.2015 in the court but in collusion of Lekhpal copy was supplied to them prior to 3.10.2015. That very copy has been filed as Annexure -16 to the writ petition. Therefore allegation that petitioners have rubbed out the endorsement of Sub Divisional Officer does not appears to be correct and writ petition is not liable to be dismissed on this preliminary objection. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that revision was filed before Board of Revenue against the order dated 6.2.2016. Therefore allegation that petitioners have rubbed out the endorsement of Sub Divisional Officer does not appears to be correct and writ petition is not liable to be dismissed on this preliminary objection. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that revision was filed before Board of Revenue against the order dated 6.2.2016. By the order dated 6.2.2016 the trial court merely entertained the written statement of the petitioners on the cost of Rs. 200/- and directed to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the suit on 20.2.2016. The Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 6.2.2016. Thus virtually the written statement which was entertained by the trial court will not be taken into consideration while deciding the issue relating to maintainability of the suit. Further the Board of Revenue has illegally observed in the order that petitioners admitted that the trial court has fixed a date for hearing the argument on the application of the petitioner relating to maintainability of the suit but due to inadvertence the order was not transcribed. He submits that he himself appeared before Board of Revenue and have never made any such admission. The order of Board of Revenue is incorrect. The Board of Revenue has directed the trial court to obtain a report from Tehsildar to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the suit. Although the Tehsildar has already submitted the report dated 14.9.2015. He submits that there was no issue relating to interim order before the Board of Revenue. Although this matter came up before this Court in Matter under Article 227 No. 3621 of 2016 and this Court by order dated 20.5.2016 declined to grant any interim order. However , Board of Revenue has superseded the order of this Court and has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thus the order of Board of Revenue is illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 7. It is not denied that the petitioners filed an application before the trial court on 22.9.2015 raising the issue relating to maintainability of suit before revenue court. In substance the allegation in the application was that since the land in dispute has already been converted into abadi land as such it no more remained bhumidhari holding and the revenue court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In substance the allegation in the application was that since the land in dispute has already been converted into abadi land as such it no more remained bhumidhari holding and the revenue court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Subsequently the petitioner filed his written statement on 14.12.2015 which was taken on record by the trial court by order dated 6.2.2016. In paragraph 42 of the written statement also, the petitioners have made an allegation that the land in dispute is abadi on the spot as such revenue court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. By the impugned order Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the suit. Thus the order of Board of Revenue in this respect, is not liable to be interfered. 8. However, the counsel for the respondents submits that the plaint and written statements are before the trial court, therefore, it is for the trial court to frame the issues and choose to decide the preliminary issue before deciding the other issues in the suit. The direction issued by the Board of Revenue in this respect is not liable to be accepted. 9. The counsel for the respondents has not challenged the order dated 15.7.2016 as such oral argument in this respect by the counsel for the respondents is not liable to be entertained. Both the parties litigating for about one year on the allegation and counter allegation as to whether revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. It is therefore appropriate that the issue in this respect is liable to be framed and the trial court may record the evidence of the parties and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. 10. This Court prefers to frame the issue as follows : - " Whether revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit ?" 11. So far as the objection of the counsel for the petitioner that the report of Tehsildar has already been submitted on record on 14.9.2015/3.10.2015 is concerned, it is for the trial court to consider and decide as to whether the report dated 14.9.2015 is genuine report in the light of the objection of the parties. So far as the objection of the counsel for the petitioner that the report of Tehsildar has already been submitted on record on 14.9.2015/3.10.2015 is concerned, it is for the trial court to consider and decide as to whether the report dated 14.9.2015 is genuine report in the light of the objection of the parties. If the the trial court found that report dated 14.9.2015 is not genuine report then it will always be open to the trial court to obtain a fresh report. Even for deciding the issue in the suit both the parties were entitled to be given opportunity to lead their evidences also. Thus argument that as the report has already been submitted on 14.9.2015 as such no fresh report can be obtained, is not liable to be accepted. It is in the discretion of the trial court to obtain a fresh report and allow the parties to file their objections as well as their evidences in order to decide the issue. 12. A serious objection has been raised that so long as the issue relating to jurisdiction is not decided, the trial court has no jurisdiction to pass interim order. In this respect the petitioners have relied upon the Judgements of this Court in Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs. Smt. Deepa Sharma, 2006 (1) ARC 717 (DB) and Bus Tata Taxi Tempo Driver and Owners Kalyan Samiti Vs. State of UP and others, 2008 (1) ARC 133 and Judgement passed in Writ C No. 22388 of 2016 Sushil Kumar Vs. ADJ, Ballia and another, decided on 16.5.2016. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is in effect where the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been filed then before passing any order the trail court was required to decide the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. 13. So far as the scope of hearing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is concerned, it is confined to the examination of allegation made in the plaint itself. Here the jurisdiction of the revenue court is challenged thus hearing of this issue is not confined on plaint allegations. For deciding the issue relating to jurisdiction of the court, the trial court will require to give opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. Here the jurisdiction of the revenue court is challenged thus hearing of this issue is not confined on plaint allegations. For deciding the issue relating to jurisdiction of the court, the trial court will require to give opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. Thus the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid cases relied upon counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in this case. The interim protection granted by the Board of Revenue will expire on 12.8.2016 as such this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However it will be open for the trial court, who after hearing the parties, will decide as to whether interim protection can be granted or not in the suit. 14. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction of the court as framed above, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence as well as after obtaining report from the sub-ordinate authorities, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him.