JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) Perused the revision petition and also heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Perusal of the file reveals that this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of so called dismissal of the application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings and objections to the maintainability of appeal on the ground of limitation. 3. Revision had been filed after seeking permission for dispensing with other certified copy of the order impugned. 4. Counsel for the respondents has produced copy of the order dated 27.5.2016 which makes mention of the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceedings and absence of the counsel for the petitioner and case has been fixed for 20.5.2016. 5. Thus no final order is shown to have been passed against which revision could be filed. 6. It has also been submitted that the proceedings before the Court below are under Land Revenue Act. 7. Under this Act also this Court has got no jurisdiction. The petitioners however seems to be aggrieved of the approach and conduct of the respondent no. 10 and as projected his grievances in para no. 2 and 5 of the revision petition. 8. He is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for seeking redressal of his grievances. 9. But as regards the revision petition against the order impugned, the same is held to be not maintainable and the same is as such dismissed. 10. File be consigned to record after due completion and Court below be informed accordingly.